Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ARGYLL COUNTY COUNCIL (SCALASAIG PIER, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered: to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Singapore (Bases)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for the future of the Singapore base on the establishment of the Malaysian Federation; and whether he will give an assurance that there will be no reduction in either the extent of the base, nor in the number of locally entered employees.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): The recent joint statement provided for the United Kingdom to continue to maintain bases at Singapore for the purpose of assisting in the defence of Malaysia, and for Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. On whose behalf is the Secretary of State for Air speaking?

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
The future extent of the bases themselves, and the number of locally entered staff, will of course depend on our detailed military requirement from time to time.

Mr. Digby: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of Defence to give very careful thought to this problem before he decides on reductions, because of the

difficulty of providing these facilities elsewhere and also because of the aspect of local employment?

Mr. Amery: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no immediate proposal for reduction, but obviously I cannot guarantee what will happen in the future. From time to time there may be changes up or down.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Agreement, in so far as it dealt with the use of Singapore for S.E.A.T.O. purposes, was entirely vague and extremely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that no one knows whether it will be possible to use this base for S.E.A.T.O. purposes without the permission of the Government of the Malaysian Federation? Is it wise in these circumstances to tie up troops for that purpose in Singapore?

Mr. Amery: I do not think there is anything vague about the Agreement. I refer the hon. Gentleman to it.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that there will be continued employment of the estimated 5,000 dedicated Chinese Communists whose services are so essential to this most invaluable cold war base?

Mr. Amery: I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question was asked more with a view to making a point than eliciting information.

Intelligence Departments

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Defence (1) if he is satisfied that enough officers, ratings and civilians are employed in the intelligence sections of the Service Departments; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if he is satisfied that enough officers, ratings and civilians are employed in the intelligence departments under his direction; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the intelligence departments are adequately staffed.

Commander Kerans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great tendency for the intelligence departments to be increased rather than decreased? Is it not time that there was a measure of integration betwen the three Services and J.I.B. in order to try to reduce a considerable overhead in our Defence Estimates for the future?

Mr. Amery: The information the Government get is pretty good and the co-ordination is pretty good. I would hesitate to tamper with the, present situation.

Armed Forces (Citizenship)

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Minister of Defence how many members of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, respectively, were born in Southern Ireland, are citizens of other Commonwealth countries or are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, other than United Kingdom citizens.

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
I regret that the records of the Service Departments are not maintained in such a way as to enable the information asked for to be provided without a disproportionate expenditure of time and effort to produce it.
I can tell the hon. Member, however, that on 1st September last there were 4,534 members of the Army who had been born in the Irish Republic, and 6,570 who had been born in Commonwealth or Colonial countries.

Mr. Ginsburg: Would not the information, if available, show a very impressive picture indeed? Has the Minister taken into account the psychological effects of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill on recruitment?

Mr. Amery: I should be the last to to underrate the importance of recruitment from the Commonwealth or Eire into the Armed Forces, but it would be very difficult to get the detailed information because, of course, all those who are born in Eire or in the Commonwealth countries are not necessarily citizens of those countries.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large sums are being spent by the Ministry of Defence on

advertising for recruits in the United Kingdom? Is anything being spent on advertising for recruits throughout the Commonwealth, where they are very much available?

Mr. Amery: There are certain agreements with Commonwealth countries whereby we do not, as it were, poach on their ground. I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman the details at the moment, but if he will put down a Question I will look into the matter.

Second World War (Decorations)

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Minister of Defence how many decorations, excluding campaign stars, were awarded to persons born in Southern Ireland, to citizens of other Commonwealth countries and to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies other than United Kingdom citizens, respectively, who served in the Armed Forces of the Crown during the 1939–45 war.

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
I am sorry, but the records as maintained do not provide the information from which I can answer the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Ginsburg: Would not the picture of the Commonwealth contribution be outstanding? Did the Minister of Defence make representations along these lines to the Home Secretary at the time when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was drafted?

Mr. Amery: More than 100,000 persons were recipients of honours and decorations, and I have no doubt that a high proportion of them came from Commonwealth countries. Of course, this is a factor which the Government have very much in mind in all these matters. I cannot say more than that.

Woomera Rocket Range

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Defence what new arrangements are being made to use Woomera rocket range for testing atomic devices.

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir.

Mrs. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been some public concern, both here and in


Australia, at the visit paid some weeks ago by General Staff Colonel Hancock from the War Office and Major Stoner of the Joint Services Liaison Staff to the Woomera rocket range, to Maralinga and also to the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury, near Adelaide? In order to allay the fears that have been expressed in the Press about these visits, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no intention of preparing for fresh atomic tests to take place at the Woomera rocket range?

Mr. Amery: I think that the answer I gave just now should be quite sufficient assurance It could hardly have been more categorical than "None, Sir".

Training Facilities, United Kingdom

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what new proposals he has for providing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and the United States and German Governments with facilities for military, naval and air training in Great Britain.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has no new proposals to announce at present.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister assure us that if there are any new proposals local authorities will be consulted before anything like this is established in their areas and, if there are no new proposals, will he take some of the old bases away?

Mr. Profumo: There is always adequate consultation. The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir".

Singapore (V-Bombers)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Defence why Royal Air Force V-bombers based on Singapore are being exercised for the contingency of a war with China.

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
No Royal Air Force V-bombers are permanently based in Singapore. It is

our policy to exercise the mobility of aircraft of Bomber Command by flights to many distant places overseas, including Singapore, where they stay for short periods.

Mr. Zilliacus: Would the right hon. Gentleman reply to the Question, which was why they are being trained for the contingency of a war with China? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a war with China would in all probability be started under S.E.A.T.O. by United States policy, such as intervening in the internal affairs of Vietnam with which this country does not agree, and will he give an assurance that we will not be involved in war for such policies?

Mr. Amery: Visits of V-bombers to Singapore are purely meant to give the maximum training in the greatest variety of climatic and geographical conditions.

Sir C. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this unfortunately worded Question—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot ask the Minister to express an opinion on an hon. Member's Question.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the feeling in China that there may be trouble caused from the West, and since this country has no intention of conducting a war with China, is not this a most unfortunately worded Question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member does not follow. The feeling in China does not alter the rules of the House. One of the first rules about Questions is that hon. Members cannot ask a Minister for an expression of opinion.

N.A.T.O. (Nuclear Authority)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence what decision has been made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation about the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Nuclear Authority.

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pressure exerted by Herr Strauss, the Federal German Minister of Defence, on General Norstad and N.A.T.O. for the purpose


of creating this authority so that the West German Government can gain control of nuclear weapons? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of that? Does he not read the newspapers? Is he not aware of what goes on in N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Amery: Under Protocol 3 of the Brussels Treaty of 1954 the Federal Republic undertook not to manufacture nuclear weapons in their territory. I know of no proposals to vary this undertaking. As to control, no proposals have been made for the distribution of nuclear weapons systems to the Federal Army except under conditions where SACEUR would obtain control and where the United States personnel would have the final custodianship of the weapons.

Mr. Shinwell: Herr Strauss has explicitly stated that he wants not only the provision of nuclear weapons made by N.A.T.O., perhaps from American sources, but that he also wants complete control of the warheads. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain what our representative at N.A.T.O. is doing about it?

Mr. Amery: When we received the right hon. Gentleman's Question we of course made inquiries, but we are not aware of the facts that he has stated.

Mr. Shinwell: Complete evasion.

N.A.T.O. (German Officers)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will list the six highest positions in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation held by German officers; if he will state the number and percentage of German generals in the senior North Atlantic Treaty Organisation staffs; and if he will oppose further appointments of this kind.

Mr. Profumo: I have been asked to reply.
With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list of the seven highest positions in N.A.T.O. held by German officers. These officers are the only seven West German officers of major-general or equivalent rank serving on N.A.T.O. staffs and form 6·38 per cent. of the total of such ranks on such

staffs. The answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir".

Mr. Allaun: At the top level is it not more than 6·3 per cent.? Did not these men—Heusinger, von Speidel and Wagner—play leading parts in planning Hitler's aggression, and even worse? Far from integrating these men in N.A.T.O., are they not being given control of it through these commanding positions?

Mr. Profumo: When the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer he will see that it fits exactly his Question. The Federal Republic is making an increasingly large contribution to N.A.T.O. forces, and it is only reasonable that a share of N.A.T.O. command and staff appointments should be filled by German officers. Regarding the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that after the plot against Hitler's life both Heusinger and von Speidel spent the rest of the war in the hands of the Gestapo.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if N.A.T.O. is to accept twelve divisions of German troops then obviously that includes general officers as well as privates?

Mr. Profumo: indicated assent.

Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the list a note of the high-ranking German officers in charge of the East German Army?

Mr. Profumo: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to put a Question to the Foreign Secretary about that.

Following is the list:
General Heusinger, Chairman, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Military Committee in Permanent Session.
General Speidel, Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces Central Europe.
Major-General von der Groeben, Deputy-Commander, Baltic Approaches.
Rear-Admiral Wagner, Commander, Naval Baltic Approaches.
1 Lieutenant-General, Supreme Head-quarters Allied Powers Europe Staff.
1 Major-General, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe Staff.
1 Major-General, Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces Central Europe Staff.

N.A.T.O. (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding control by the Organisation of nuclear weapons and warheads.

Mr. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
Her Majesty's Government support the present N.A.T.O. arrangements for the control of nuclear weapons. These are that the initial use of nuclear weapons by N.A.T.O. forces would require a specific order from the Supreme Commander, and that this would be subject to his obtaining political authorisation.

Mr. Allaun: But if atomic weapons are given, directly or indirectly, to N.A.T.O., is not that a concealed way of giving them to the German generals, since they are now more and more becoming a dominant force?

Mr. Amery: There are no plans or proposals for handing over any nuclear warheads or bombs to the German forces. Where they would be equipped under N.A.T.O. arrangements with a nuclear delivery system, the weapons would remain under the direct control of General Norstad and the warheads would be in United States custody.

Mr. Shinwell: If it comes to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and of his colleague the Minister of Defence that Herr Strauss has made a proposal for the control not only of the weapons but of the warheads, will it be resisted by our representative at N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Amery: That is a different question. If the information had been different, I would, of course, have told the House. What the right hon. Gentleman is asking is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Mayhew: In the case of British troops, for example, nuclear warheads, although not under British control, are allocated to British formations. Can the Minister say whether the position is the same with the German formations?

Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question about that.

Mr. M. Foot: Why does the Ministry of Defence appear to be unaware of

fresh proposals which are being strongly pressed by the German Government and which are known to everybody who reads the newspapers but which, apparently, the Ministry of Defence has not heard about?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, a close student of the newspapers, but there are other channels of information as well.

National Service Men

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give an assurance that compulsory military service will not be restored, nor will National Service men be used, to help the Governments of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Central Treaty Organisation and South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, to put down internal subversion in their territories.

Mr. Profumo: I have been asked to reply.
The rôle of Her Majesty's Forces, whether National Service or Regular, remains to fulfil the United Kingdom's treaty commitments and to protect British rights and interest throughout the world. Her Majesty's Government have no intention in present circumstances of re-introducing National Service.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 18th October, the Lord Privy Seal told the House that
the presence of Western troops in Western Germany is … a very important guarantee against internal subversion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1961; Vol. 646, c. 227.]
Is he further aware that under C.E.N.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O., we are pledged to go to the assistance of Governments when they declare that a popular rising in their territory constitutes internal subversion against which they need help to defend themselves? Finally, is the Minister not aware that these policies of armed intervention in the internal affairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—of other countries constitute a violation of the United Nations Charter by aggression and could provoke a world war? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain—[Interruption.]—why the taxpayer should spend £1,700 million a year for this kind of thing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Profumo: It seems to me that that has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper, but I am glad that the hon. Member has got it off his chest.

Civil Defence and Service Departments

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to secure better integration between Civil Defence forces and the Armed Services, with a view to achieving greater efficiency; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Profumo: I have been asked to reply.
Co-operation between the Services and the civil defence authorities at all levels is already close and is being still further developed.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that there is little evidence of such cooperation in actual practice? Does he not agree that in view of the comprehensive nature of civil defence duties and obligations, there is a strong and striking case, not merely for co-operation and understanding, but for a greater degree of integration between the Services, on the one hand, and the admirable civil defence workers, on the other hand?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Member has any specific points in mind, he should write to my right hon. Friend. I should like to reassure him, however, on the points he raised originally. We are doing everything possible and we are working further for the aim of closer co-operation between the military and the civil authorities in this direction.

Mr. Paget: Has the Secretary of State considered bringing all civil defence under the command of the Territorial Army? This proposal has been put forward and it seems to make sense.

Mr. Profumo: What would happen on the outbreak of hostilities would be that the military commander-in-chief of United Kingdom land forces would take charge of the whole operation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the efficiency of the civil defence organisation is adequate to deal with an emergency which might arise? Would it not be better to

bring in as many properly-trained personnel as possible?

Mr. Profumo: That is more a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary than for me. I have dealt with the military co-operation side of the Question.

Mr. Macnamara (Conversations)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his official conversation last week with Mr. Macnamara, the American Secretary for Defence.

Mr. J. Amery: I have been asked to reply.
There were no conversations last week. My right hon. Friend is having conversations this week with Mr. Macnamara as with other N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers. Their conversations are confidential.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister assure us that the Government will resist any proposals by Mr. Macnamara for increased expenditure by this country?

Mr. Amery: That raises another issue. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to put down another Question about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Chatham Dockyard

Mr. Burden: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what effect the reorganisation of Chatham Dockyard has had upon efficiency and the costs of production.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian On-Ewing): It is too early yet to judge how great the improvement will be. The process of reorganisation is not yet complete and in any case it is bound initially to cause some disturbance to production. Within the compass of the Question and Answer I cannot deal adequately with all the factors involved; and I am writing more fully to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Burden: In thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can estimate when the reorganisation is likely to be completed?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is too early yet to say.

Admiralty Employees (Wage Award)

Mr. Paget: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why he has refused to make an increase of £1 per week awarded by the Industrial Court to 2,364 Admiralty employees.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The increase of £1 a week which the Industrial Court published on 15th September has been accepted.
In accordance with the declared Government policy the payment of this award must be deferred during the period of the wage pause. During the wage pause an increase of 8s. a week, which had previously been offered, has been paid. This wage increase is back-dated to 1st October, 1960—a date five months earlier than the date proposed by the Industrial Court.

Mr. Paget: That is a very disappointing Answer. Can the Minister tell us how these men differ from those in the fire services and why what is good enough for the fire services does not apply to them? Is he aware that in terms of common honesty and dealing with one's obligation to employees, we had expected rather better of the Admiralty?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot answer for the fire services, but I should like to direct the hon. and learned Member's attention to the statement made on 23rd October by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the said:
What the Government have done is to reserve to themselves the decision as to the date when any increases agreed or awarded should be put into effect."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1961; Vol. 646, c. 623.]
That is what we have done

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Can my hon. Friend say whether there have been any other recent increases for this group of employees?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In October, 1960, there was an increase of 5s. a week; in April, 1961, an increase of 3s. a week; and then there is this last increase of 8s. a week back-dated to October, 1960.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that on Monday this week, I was told from the Government Front Bench that

the responsibility for wage negotiations was between the employers and the workers' representatives? How is it that Government Departments now interfere with the decisions of workmen and employers when they come to a decision, as they have done in the Industrial Court?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is why, in my first supplementary answer, I quoted the fact that we have accepted the award and have only taken powers to delay its implementation.[Interruption.] It is not a laughing matter. The economic and future trading position of the nation depends upon these issues. Therefore, they are extremely important. We have only taken power to delay the implementation of the award until the wage pause ceases, when the employees will get these increases.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister saying that at the end of the pay pause, he will be willing to pay this increase from the date of the arbitration award, which has been the normal practice for 40 years? If he is not saying that, are we to take it that after a decade of Conservative government our economy is is such a state that we cannot afford to pay an increase like this and that we are ready to wreck arbitration agreements of 40 years' standing and a procedure that has stood the test of time? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is telling us?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, Sir.

Mr. Callaghan: I asked a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I do not know quite what is happening. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not raising a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think there will be an opportunity to discuss these things on Monday as far as I can judge the business.

Mr. Callaghan: Very well, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order? I was not intending to do so, but I should now like to raise one. I put—[Interruption.]—and I appeal to you for your protection, Mr. Speaker—a perfectly fair question to the Minister about whether he proposed to pay the increase to the


men from the date on which the arbitration award was given. The reply which I got from the Minister was put into his mouth by a former Civil Lord of thirty years ago. There is more feeling in the Civil Service and among industrial employees about these matters than I have ever known. We are entitled to have fair replies from the Minister on these important questions.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I do not discover the point of order.

Submarines (Polaris Missile)

Commander Courtney: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will now publish the result of the investigation recently put in hand concerning the application of Polaris to Her Majesty's submarines; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 6th December.

Commander Courtney: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply and his previous reply will give no satisfaction to those of us who are interested in this important matter? Does he appreciate that the Soviet Navy, as well as the United States Navy, has more than one type of missile-firing submarine at sea already? Does he not think it disgraceful that in this matter the Royal Navy has made no progress that is evident to the House?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is not true that we have made no progress. We are building two nuclear submarines and we are also studying carefully whether it would be possible at some time in the future, if Government policy so desires, to carry Polaris missiles in nuclear submarines.

Barrack Blocks (Air Conditioning)

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that air-conditioning has not been incorporated in the barrack blocks in Hong Kong now under construction; and if he will ensure that in any future design for barrack blocks, in tropical countries, such air-conditioning will be incorporated.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Air conditioning is provided in new construction at

Aden and Bahrein. The need for air conditioning in other areas is being reviewed by all three Services. The barrack blocks in Honk Kong to which my hon. Friend refers are being built to tropical scales which gives each man 35 per cent. more space than he would have in an air conditioned building.

Mr. Bossom: Is my hon. Friend aware that I appreciate that this must be agreed first between the three Services and that later, no doubt, the Treasury must be persuaded? Surely, however, the financial saving resulting from reducing living space by 35 per cent. would more than offset the cost of air conditioning. Would not the efficiency and the contentment of Service men be greatly increased if they were able to eat, and especially sleep, in air-conditioned quarters?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Those are exactly the considerations which we are taking into account in the review.

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Small: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many nuclear physicists are employed at the Yarrow Research Establishment on marine nuclear propulsion.

Mr. Bence: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what research work is being carried out by his research agencies on marine nuclear propulsion; and how many nuclear physicists are employed by his research agencies.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The figures requested would provide a useful guide to the amount of research and development effort we are devoting to this aspect of naval research. I cannot therefore believe it is in the public interest to give them.

Mr. Small: Has the Minister any intention of adding to the number? Does he propose to make a bigger contribution to ensure the maximum progress in this sphere of development, which is badly needed in Britain?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The number of nuclear physicists at Y.A.R.D. about which the hon. Member asks is not really a matter which we dictate. As long as Y.A.R.D. undertakes the programme which we ask it to undertake, it is for


Y.A.R.D. itself to distribute its personnel between the specialist and scientific branches. Our needs in this direction are being fully met.

Mr. Bence: Would not the Minister agree that, with shipbuilding capacity now in excess of demand and with the steel industry working below full demand, it would be advisable to concentrate more scientists and nuclear physicists on the development of the propulsion of hulls by nuclear power, because the physical resources are now available which we have not had for 15 years? Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to impress upon the shipbuilding industry and on his right hon. Friends the need to devote more of our physical resources to the evolution and development of nuclear propulsion, so that Britain may regain its position in the mercantile world?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We recognise the importance of all forms of research and development in the Navy. We are allocating a large slice of the Navy Vote to research and development. I will certainly bear in mind the points that hon. Member has made.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what plans he has for the development of nuclear-powered warships, and, in particular, aircraft carriers; and what information he has sought, when studying this matter, regarding United States experience with the aircraft carrier "Enterprise".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty has no plans for the development of nuclear-powered warships, other than submarines, although research into nuclear propulsion for surface ships is continuing. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would give satisfaction to Great Britain, and, indeed, to many of our allies, if some of our ships with nuclear reactors could be sailing the world? Can he tell me why it should rest in the hands of the United States of America to demonstrate the results of their reactors? Have we not got better reactors and better ships? How long is it going to take us before we can do something? Is my hon. Friend aware

that at one time we were told that it would not be safe to have a ship with a nuclear reactor sailing the world? Yet it seems to be safe for Americans, and so it could be safe for us. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is not a question of safety but a question of getting value for money and the most ships for the Fleet at sea. We can get better value because the capital costs and fuel costs and refitting costs of these surface ships are many times more than the costs for conventional ships.

Commander Courtney: Does my hon. Friend foresee the embarrassment which is going to be caused to him and his Department by the fact that by the time these two nuclear submarines get to sea all the ratings in the submarines will be chief petty officers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that that is a very good advertisement for the rate of promotion in the Navy.

Party, Chatham (Board of Inquiry)

Mr. Burden: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what was the result of the Board of Inquiry set up by the Admiralty to look into the use of naval signal rockets at a Guy Fawkes party at Chatham on 4th November.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Board of Inquiry has reported that this was a private party organised by a number of officers of H.M.S. "Pembroke". It has been established that a number of Service signal rockets and other fireworks were improperly used they have since been fully paid for.
The Admiralty is much concerned and greatly regrets that this incident was a cause of apprehension by any of the neighbours of H.M.S. "Pembroke". Disciplinary action has been taken in the case of two naval officers.

Mr. Burden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the biggest and possibly the most painful rocket from this incident is the reprimand which has been levelled at the officer concerned who, no doubt, will have to pay from his own pocket, and so would he give an undertaking that the result of this exuberance will not be shown on his records?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No. I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking. What I can say is that if the officer is good enough he can live this reprimand down, believe that a number of Sea Lords have eventually got to the Board of Admiralty after receiving reprimands of this sort. So the reprimand can be lived down if one is good enough.

Cigarettes Advertisement (Films)

Mr. Paget: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what assistance was rendered by Her Majesty's Navy in the making of a colour film to advertise a brand of cigarettes.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As I told the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 13th November, these advertising films depict routine naval activities. No special facilities are provided so that there is no cost to Navy Votes.

Mr. Paget: But is it not really undesirable that this should happen? This particular film, a coloured film, appeared to be authentic Navy until we got the pay-off line at the end and found that the Navy was selling cigarettes. At least, that was the appearance. Surely it is undesirable and quite contrary to the dignity of a great Service?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman refers to a film made, I think, prior to the end of 1959. Since that time we have changed the procedure, and now the company which makes these films does not show officers or ratings smoking cigarettes. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to see these films—I saw them myself last week—I should be very glad to display them in the Grand Committee Room.

Contractors' Bills (Payment)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will give general instructions to his Department to settle debts as promptly as possible, and, in particular, to pay forthwith the balance owed to Messrs. F. R. Bartlett, of Yeovil, which has been outstanding for an excessive length of time.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I can assure my hon. Friend that we always do our best to pay contractors' bills promptly.
I assume that the second part of the Question refers to Messrs. Bartlett's contract for twelve flats at Ilchester. Apart from the sum of £3 there is no balance owed under this contract itself. Messrs. Bartlett have claimed for extra expenses but these are not considered to be an Admiralty liability and their claims have been rejected.

Mr. Peyton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some respects his information conflicts with information which I have? Will he appoint an official of his Department, with adequate authority to make a decision, to see this firm and to get the thing settled? For far too long letters have gone unanswered. They have been written to Yeovil and then been referred to Devonport, and from Devonport have been referred to Portland, and from Portland to Plymouth. This sort of thing is really very bad, and it is not the first time that this firm has had this unhappy experience.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My noble Friend and I are just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to get the matter settled. Perhaps he could come to see us and meet our experts and try to get it settled once for all.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. McMaster: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the aircraft carrier building programme for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been made concerning the replacement of the existing fleet of aircraft carriers.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have nothing to add to my Answer of 12th July to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). No decision has yet been taken about aircraft carrier replacements.

Mr. McMaster: In thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, I should like to ask him if, in view of the severe recession at the moment in the shipbuilding industry and also in view of the falling number of British bases overseas, he will expedite the consideration of the replacement of our aircraft carriers.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are certainly considering replacement, but there is no need to make a decision just yet awhile.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House when this decision is made, in view of the very enormous cost involved in this?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I note that.

Mr. Bence: When he takes the decision to start replacing the aircraft carriers in the Fleet, will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that in Scotland we have some of the largest berths in Europe for building and launching very large ships?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, and we shall also bear in mind that there are £24 million worth of naval ships being built on Clydeside just now; that there have been £27 million worth built in the last ten years in Ulster, and that there are rival claims from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) as well.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

H.M.S. "Caledonia" (Apprentices' Accommodation)

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what further steps have been taken in the provision of new living accommodation for the artificer apprentices at H.M.S. "Caledonia".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The designing of this accommodation has been proceeding as planned, and is making good progress.

Mr. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he intends now to keep his promise to proceed to rebuild all this accommodation next year?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I see no reason to change the forecast which I gave earlier this year.

Anglo-Spanish Naval Exercises

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Spanish naval exercise in the Mediterranean from 11th December to 19th December.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the proposed joint naval manoeuvres to be held between 11th and 19th December involving British and Spanish naval forces.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: This exercise which started in Malta on Monday is the third in a series of Anglo-Spanish exercises held annually since 1959. It is similar in character to last year's exercise which was mentioned in this year's Explanatory Statement.

Sir L. Plummer: May I ask the Civil Lord this? Is it not true that normally this country carries on exercises with allies and not with people who are enemies of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—who are pro-Nazi, pro-Fascist, like the Franco Government? Is it not an astonishing thing that his own office, when the first announcement of this exercise appeared in the Press, knew nothing at all about it? Is it not astonishing that the information was given by the Commander in Chief in the Mediterranean? Is this a back-door way the Government are using to get Franco Spain into N.A.T.O.? Is that the purpose of this exercise?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There are a lot of supplementary questions there. On the first point, my office knew it as one of a series of three exercises. The previous announcements came from the Commander in Chief at Malta. There is nothing unusual about that. The exercise is a bilateral one. Certainly it is in no way concerned with N.A.T.O. These exercises should be of benefit to the Royal Navy, and follow the Government's policy of maintaining contact with the navies of countries with which we have normal diplomatic relations. For example, there was an exercise with the Yugoslav navy a few years ago. We may well do so again.

Mr. R. Edwards: Is the Civil Lord aware that the Spanish Captain Pollanco has publicly declared his support for Franco's claims to Gibraltar? Is it not a very dangerous exercise to train potential aggressors against British territory? Is the Civil Lord further aware that the same Spanish captain justified the use of German U-boats in Spanish, waters during the last war and justified the use of U-boats against British troopships in Freetown Harbour which resulted in the loss of thousands of British soldiers and sailors? Is not this enough for those dead people to turn over in their graves in disgust?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry, but I cannot be responsible for certain statements made by Spanish personnel. I should have thought it extremely unlikely that Spanish ships would be likely to make an assault on the Rock of Gibraltar. I think that we are enlarging the area of international understanding by exercises of this sort.

Mr. Burden: Is it not clear that if the British and Spanish navies exercise together the Spanish captain to whom the hon. Member opposite referred will be left in no doubt as to the folly of any attempt to acquire Gibraltar?

Mr. Dugdale: Will the hon. Gentleman see that there is as much fraternising as possible between the British and Spanish forces in order to ensure that British officers and ratings learn all they can about the principles of their Fascist allies and why they decided to support Hitler and Mussolini?

Mr. Burden: But they did not.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that it is a mistake to try to drag the Royal Navy into the political arena. As I made clear, we exercise with the navies of countries with which we have normal diplomatic relations. There was no row over the exercise with the Yugoslav navy, and we also announced that.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his twice given answer about Yugoslavia? Does he think it right to put on terms of parity Marshal Tito, who fought on our side in the last war very courageously against the Germans, and General Franco who harboured spies at La Linea to the extent that we had to go into Gibraltar after dark and get out before daylight in order that reports should not get back to the Germans? Will he please not put these two countries on a par in this way?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is not for me "to try to draw distinctions between two such great men".

Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order. May I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall apply to you at the end of Questions for permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss this?

Dockyard, Antigua (Opening)

Commander Courtney: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what warships were present at the opening of Lord Nelson's Dockyard at Antigua; and by whom the Royal Navy was represented.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Senior Naval Officer, West Indies, was to have been present with the ships H.M.S. "Troubridge" and H.M.S. "Vidal" at the reopening of the Dockyard at Antigua on 14th November. They were, however, diverted to emergency hurricane relief work at British Honduras and were thus unable to attend. The Board of Admiralty sent a message of best wishes on the day, regretting that circumstances prevented the presence of Her Majesty's ships.

Commander Courtney: While appreciating the reason for the absence of Her Majesty's ships, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that American and Canadian ships were present and that British onlookers regretted the fact that there was no senior Naval officer there? Would it not have been right in the circumstances to have flown out there, perhaps, a Sea Lord from England?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that in the circumstances we were obliged to give absolute priority to the relief of Belize and the hardship which was being suffered there, and to let that override one's natural desire to attend such an important function.

Mr. Kimball: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the immense dollar-earning capacity of this particular tourist attraction, and its tremendous importance to the West Indies, and see if the Navy can give it a fillip?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Foreign Personnel (Pensions)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking in connection with pensions for Polish and other foreign personnel, who fought from this country during the war, for whom he has retained responsibility.

Mr. Profumo: Since the war, successive administrations have felt unable to agree that these officers and men should be awarded pensions for which they did not qualify under British Service rules. I regret I can see no grounds for changing that policy now.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Has my right hon. Friend had any further representations on this matter recently? Does he really think that these men who gave so much in the cause of freedom have had a fair deal?

Mr. Profumo: I have had approaches, particularly an approach to support a charity to this end, in the recent past, and we gave it some consideration. As to whether these gallant men have been treated fairly, that is a matter on which I should not like to pronounce. I do not know that one can treat people who have behaved in this way in the war—indeed, as gallantly as our own Service people—in the way one would like to do. I do not think that we could give to these people preferential treatment beyond what British ex-Service men have by way of pension for war services.

Mr. Paget: But nobody is asking for preferential treatment. What was said at the time was that the breach with their own country was probably temporary and, therefore, we would not bring them in and make them eligible for our war pensions. Now that it has become plain that that breach is permanent, would it not be reasonable and generous, and fair recognition of the very gallant services rendered, to treat them as our own people?

Mr. Profumo: I have paid what I thought was an adequate tribute to the way in which these gallant people served the cause of freedom. I am second to none in the tribute which I pay to them. This matter has been examined by successive Governments since the end of the war and I do not think the circumstances have changed in such a way as to make it possible to review the policy, as my hon. Friend has asked in this specific Question. If it is wished to bring forward further information I shall be only too glad to look at it, but it would be wrong for me to mislead my hon. Friend

and the House into thinking that the inquiries which we have carried out so far would lead me to make any change.

Barracks and Married Quarters, Gibraltar

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for War what modernisation has taken place since 1945 in the barracks and married quarters at Gibraltar.

Mr. Profumo: About £700,000 has been spent since 1945 on new constructions, improvements and modernisation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the conditions in barracks at Gibraltar are on all-fours with those in Germany and in this country?

Mr. Profumo: No, I am not. The only really satisfactory solution in Gibraltar is new building, since most of the property housing the troops is too old for modernisation. This rebuilding must be linked with the new town plan for the garrison and for this the plan is well advanced.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: How soon will the plan come into operation?

Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that I cannot give any estimate of that. It depends on the Gibraltar authorities. It might be that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary can give a more adequate answer. We are anxious to press ahead, but we must do so in combination with the Gibraltar authorities.

Mr. M. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman inviting a Spanish general or admiral or even General Franco to open the new barracks?

Spanish Military Mission

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what facilities have been given to the military mission from Spain, headed by Colonel Joaquin Lopez, to visit the fighting vehicles development establishment at Chobham, Surrey;
(2) what assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the military mission from Spain, headed by Colonel Joaquin Lopez, to enable them to visit the Rolls-Royce, Daimler and Alvis works; what is the purpose of


these visits; and what undertakings have been given that licences for the export of military vehicles to Spain will be issued.

Mr. Profumo: A party of Spanish officers was invited by the firms concerned to visit their works. My Department co-operated with the firms in arranging the visit, which was timed to coincide with the demonstration of weapons and equipment held in October at the Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment at Chobham. No special facilities were given to the party. 'The question of export licences has not arisen.

Mr. Brockway: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the previous Questions and Answers about the joint naval manoeuvres? Is this another indication that Her Majesty's Government will now pursue a policy of military and naval alliance with a country which is Fascist, which represses liberties, and denies all the democratic ideas for which this country stands?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that even the hon. Member has any justification for drawing that conclusion from the Answer to his specific Questions. Even the hon. Member himself would have been welcome at this demonstration.

Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that there are several Questions on the Order Paper dealing with a naval and military agreement between Spain and this country, may I ask whether any pact or agreement has been made between us, openly or covertly, that will lead us to some such agreement?

Mr. Profumo: That is a wider question and the hon. Member should put it on the Order Paper.

Fusilier Marsh

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he intends to take to clear the name of Fusilier Marsh, who was wrongfully arrested by civilian police at the request of his Department, and on his behalf, at his home in St. Helens, Lancashire; and whether he will consider making suitable arrangements to compensate Fusilier Marsh for the distress caused to him and his wife.

Mr. Profumo: My hon. Friend has already written to the hon. Member, giving him a full account of the circumstances, but I am glad to take this opportunity of stating that no blame whatever attaches to Fusilier Marsh, and to express my own regret at this unhappy error. I must, however, make it quite clear that Fusilier Marsh was not arrested, and I do not consider that there are grounds in this case for financial compensation.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that apologies are not enough in a case like this? Is he aware that this young man was wrongfully detained? Is it his impression that it is a good advertisement to encourage young men to join Her Majesty's Forces when men like this young fellow are treated in such a bad way? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider compensating this young man for the damage for which his Department was responsible by this wrongful arrest?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member has had a full letter from my hon. Friend on this matter. I feel that to make an apology was the right action to take in this case. This was a complete mistake by a member of the clerical staff. When the fusilier was thought to be a deserter, the clerk informed the police. The police did not arrest Fusilier Marsh or detain him but they asked him to go to the police station to establish the facts. I very much regret this error. It was a simple human error for which I felt I should apologise, and I have done so.

Mr. Burden: What action has been taken about the clerk who was responsible for this, and what action has been taken to ensure that in future before an allegation of this sort is made it is checked to establish its accuracy?

Mr. Profumo: I understand my hon. Friends interest in this matter. If he would like to consult me I will go into all the facts with him without detaining the House. It was an error which I do not believe will happen again. The civilian clerk concerned has left the Service.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Officers (Retired Pay and Pensions)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War what representations he has received from the Officers' Pension Society asking that all retired pay and widows' pensions should be reviewed immediately, and also biennially, with a view to awarding compensation for rises in the cost of living; and what action he intends to take on those proposals.

Mr. Profumo: The chairman of the Society has recently written to the Adjutant General raising a number of points about retired pay and pensions. His letter is being studied and will be answered when it has been given due consideration. However, I think that it is only fair to make one general point. Successive Governments have taken the view that it would be wrong to treat existing Armed Forces' pensioners differently from the general body of public service pensioners. I cannot hold out any hope that a different view will be taken now.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable disparities between the pensions now available to retired officers after a certain date and after a certain age and the pensions for those retired officers who had to retire compulsorily before a certain date? Is he also aware of the considerable hardship caused by these disparities and will he in his reconsideration of the representations made to him take all these factors into account?

Mr. Profumo: I will certainly take all factors into account when a reply is sent to this very voluminous document. It would be wrong for me to make any pronouncement before I thoroughly examine it, but on the facts we have at the moment I do not think that we can change the policy.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend quite sure that he is justified in making this comparison with other public service pensions? Is he not taking advantage of the fact that these are among the most loyal and long suffering of the civilian members of the population? Is he aware that at any rate they seem to think that they are being exploited?

Mr. Profumo: I think that we are taking the right attitude. My admiration for these people is not in any way diminishing, but the Grigg Report took this view and this has been the view taken by successive Governments. I can do no more than say that I will look at the representations on the basis of which this Question has been put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whilst he continues paying pensions in bad money, which is what this amounts to, to the people who receive these pensions, these people act as anti-recruiting officers and do so in the very families from which we draw our best recruits? Is he aware that it is no use offering most attractive pensions now when we provide this example that the pension will not be worth much when the person receives it?

Mr. Profumo: Although that may be relevant, it goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend forget for a moment about successive Governments, in view of the fact that the present Prime Minister promised that everybody should share in the country's prosperity? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a pledge on the part of this Government and has nothing to do with successive Governments? When shall we have an implementation of this pledge? When we have it, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he can leave it to the House of Commons to see that other people get their fair share?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Dame Irene Ward: May I have an answer?

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry. I did not mean to leave my hon. Friend without a reply. I was considering her long question. I cannot go further than the Answer I have given to the Question on the Order Paper, but I will bear in mind the points that have been made when I come to consider this document.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of putting all retired officers on current rates of retirement pay? Can he explain


why an officer who retired in 1946, for instance, should be on a lower pension than an officer of the same rank who retires today after similar service?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think I should answer any of these questions in isolation. I will bear them in mind when I look at this document.

ANGLO-SPANISH NAVAL EXERCISES

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to conduct joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean with the Spanish Navy, without prior information being given to Parliament and contrary to the hitherto clearly expressed policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Spanish Government, with its implicit acceptance of Spain as an ally of the free world.
On the basis or urgency, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the naval exercises are taking place at this moment, and that it is the desire of a great number of my right hon. and hon. Friends that those exercises should be broken off forthwith. This matter, therefore, is one of urgency.
A few minutes ago, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to me, said that the Royal Navy was conducting an exercise with naval forces of a country with whom this country had diplomatic

relations and that these exercises were, therefore, normal and proper. I want to debate whether, in these circumstances, we will have naval exercises with the Soviet Union, Poland and other countries.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches on these applications. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I will hear submissions about his application being in order but not about these other matters.

Sir L. Plummer: I was giving you the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I was pressing this point of view. I am prepared to give them more fully if you will allow my plea.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asks leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to conduct joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean with the Spanish Navy, without prior information being given to Parliament and contrary to the hitherto clearly expressed policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Spanish Government, with its implicit acceptance of Spain as an ally of the free world.
I regret that I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's application. I understand that these manoeuvres began on Monday and are actually in progress. A decision, I am told, was announced by a naval officer at Gibraltar—I forget who it was—on Monday.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT

3.33 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion.
This is the seventh time I have sought leave to introduce this Bill in respect to racial discrimination. On this occasion, I have added Clauses which would make public incitement of hatred or contempt also an offence.
I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), Clauses from whose Bill I have incorporated in mine. If I have the opportunity later of reading the names of the sponsors of my proposed Bill, I think that the House will find that it now has influential support among all three parties in the House.
On previous occasions when I have introduced this Bill against racial discrimination, the First Reading has been allowed, but it has been obstructed at later stages. I want to ask hon. Members opposite who are opposed to the Bill to come into the open and challenge it now, on this Motion.
All through these last eight years, since I first introduced the Bill, it has been necessary. It has never been more necessary than now. Rightly or wrongly, the impression has been spread in the Commonwealth, in many parts of the world, and amongst sections of our own people, that the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which is now before the House will exclude persons on the ground of their colour from coming into this country. It is, therefore, imperative that, at this moment, the House should pass a Measure which makes it clear that discrimination on the grounds of race or colour shall no longer be practised within our own territory.
The Bill is moderate and reasonable. I recognise that one cannot end racial discrimination by legislation. It is largely due to ignorance, to prejudice and to a sense of racial superiority. This will be ended only by education, by experi-

ence and by the acceptance of a broader social ethic. The Bill recognises that we have no right to lay down a code of personal conduct unless it invades a public right. Therefore, the Bill would be limited to public institutions and to a relevant social contract which has the authority of the law.
It would make racial discrimination illegal in hotels, restaurants, common lodging houses, places of entertainment and dance halls. I will give two illustrations from that series. First, I have the names of eight hotels in one area of London which will not allow any coloured persons to have accommodation. Ironically, those hotels are members of British Travel and Holidays Association, to which the Government give a subsidy to attract visitors from abroad.
When I raised this matter in the House, the Government replied that the victims should prosecute the hotel owners, but it is a mistaken view that all visitors to hotels are protected under the present law. That is, indeed, true in the case of travellers, but if a coloured family, evicted and homeless, sought accommodation in one of those hotels it would be refused by the owners.
It is now quite frequent that coloured persons are excluded from dance halls, particularly so if they do not have partners with them. The argument is that it causes trouble among white men, who do not like to see coloured men dancing with white girls. I suggest, however, that the responsibility should be placed on the owners to deal with these troublemakers rather than to exclude coloured persons from dance halls.
The social contract with which my Bill deals is in the refusal of leases for houses or flats, or the inclusion in a lease of any clause which prohibits a coloured person from occupying the premises. This very frequently occurs. Again and again, I am receiving letters from Africans and others who, when they have telephoned for accommodation have been told, "Yes, come along. You may have it," but when they have reached the estate agents they have been denied the accommodation because of their colour.
Recently, we have had a very striking instance of this discrimination. It was the case of a counsellor of an African


Embassy in London. For four months he sought accommodation. Again and again the negotiations were near completion and then, when it was discovered that he was an African, they were ended. He used these words:
My Ambassador has had the same difficulty. I know several diplomats from other newly independent African States who have had the same trouble with the colour bar.
It will be a disgrace if this country allows diplomats from other countries to continue to be treated with that discrimination in our midst.
The Bill would also make it an offence publicly to incite contempt or hatred on the grounds of race, religion or colour. I submit that spiritual incitement in this way could be as disastrous to the well-being of the community as direct physical incitement. Indeed, those who know the circumstances in Notting Hill, and other areas where disturbances have occurred, know that it is the incitement to contempt and hatred on grounds of race or colour which has frequently led to the disturbances.
I submit that a nation which permits discrimination in public relations has no right to call itself civilised, or to belong to the human family. When a child is born it is not its physical form or the pigment of its skin which makes it sacred—it is the spiritual life, the personality, within. If we are to reflect the Christian ethic, we should embody that principle in the law of our land.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brockway, Mr. J. Griffiths, Mr. Creech Jones, Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Wall, Mr. Fisher, Sir G. Nicholson, Mr. Critchley, Mr. Greenwood, Mrs. Castle and Sir L. Plummer.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT

Bill to make it an offence to discriminate to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race or religion in the United Kingdom and to incite publicly contempt or hatred of any person or persons because of their colour, race or religion, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed.[Bill 48.]

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(INCREASE OF WIDOW'S BASIC PENSION.)

A widow's basic pension payable by virtue of the National Insurance (Pensions. Existing Beneficiaries and Other Persons) (Transitional) Regulations, 1948, shall be increased to twenty shillings weekly.—[Mr. Houghton]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause deals with the somewhat familiar case of the 10s. widow. In the speech I made on Second Reading of the Bill, on 9th November, as reported in column 1202 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that day. I said that we on these benches would be returning to this matter if opportunity arose during the course of consideration of the Bill. It was referred to last year on the Second Reading of the Bill of 1960, and in a speech I made on Second Reading of that Bill on 15th November, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day. On 24th November, 1960, as reported in col. 1411, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) moved an Amendment to the Schedule to increase the 10s. pension of the so-called 10s. widow to 20s. weekly.
The debate then was somewhat abbreviated, because time was pressing on that day. What I am about to do now can be said to be a continuation of the debate which took place on 24th November, 1960. I need scarcely recall that the 10s. widow is a woman who was married before 5th July, 1948, and has since been widowed, but who, under the new scheme, is not entitled either to a widow's pension or a widowed mother's allowance. Under the 1948 scheme, she had reserved to her in those circumstances the benefit which she would have drawn had the old scheme continued. That is how she comes to draw the 10s. a week pension—the same amount as the widow's pension before the new scheme came into operation in 1948.
When he speaks to the House or to the Committee on this matter, the Minister reminds us that these are the widows who get 10s. a week in circumstances in which other widows governed entirely by the new scheme get nothing. That is true. There was, however, in the 1948 scheme a specific reservation to this type of widow of the old benefit of 10s. a week. That is in contrast with the removal of the 10s. a week old-age pension to persons insured under the old scheme because in their case the new benefit, the new retirement pension, replaced the old-age pension.
Nevertheless, after the new scheme came into operation there were some persons who would have been entitled to the old-age pension under the old scheme who were not entitled to a retirement pension under the new scheme. Therefore, it could be said in their case that they were deprived by the change to the new scheme of a benefit which they would have had under the old scheme.
No one complained about that, at least not very much, because the new benefit, in most cases, would supersede the original 10s. a week old-age pension. But, for reasons which seemed good and sufficient to Parliament at the time, this type of widow on whose behalf we propose this new Clause was specifically given as a reserved right the 10s. a week which she would have drawn under the old scheme notwithstanding the fact that she was not entitled either to a widow's pension or a widowed mother's allowance under the new scheme.
All that is common ground. The issue before the House today, as on previous occasions is: what do we do about a reserved benefit which has been reduced in value by the fall in the value of money? Do we leave it as it was, or do we restore something of the real value of the benefit concerned?
There will be no dispute that 10s. a week in 1948 was worth a great deal more than 10s. a week is today. In fact, last year the Minister said that to restore the real value of the 10s. a week pension it would have to be increased to about 16s. a week. Possibly it would be a little higher than that today because of the change in the value of money in the intervening period.
I think that it is common ground that the 10s. a week at the 1948 level would have to be increased by some shillings a week to restore its real value in 1948 terms.
The question is: do we do that? Is there any need to do it? Is there any case for doing it? The Minister says, "No". We say, "Yes". What the Minister has said is "This is a reserved benefit, a legacy from a scheme which is now obsolete. While Parliament thought it just that this benefit should be reserved there was no obligation upon Parliament to maintain its real value; 10s. it was and 10s. it should remain until the end of time".
We do not look at it in that light. If it was thought proper that these widows should have 10s. a week under the provisions of the 1948 scheme, we believe that it is the duty of Parliament to maintain the real value of the reserved benefit, or, at any rate, to keep the value of that benefit in harmony with the increase in other benefits under the National Insurance Scheme.
Those who were drawing their retirement pensions immediately the 1948 scheme came into operation have paid no contributions since then. They have had their benefits improved on several occasions in order, as the Prime Minister once put it, to give the National Insurance beneficiaries a share in the rising prosperity of the country. We have fully supported that view. Our only criticism is that the Government have not yet gone far enough. They have not given the National Insurance beneficiaries a big enough share in the country's rising prosperity.
The 10s. widow has not yet received any improvement in the money value of her pension since it was first granted. We hold the view, therefore, that we cannot dismiss this case on the ground that the 10s. benefit to this type of widow is not an integral part of the 1948 scheme. It was part of the bargain of the 1948 scheme. It was part of the conditions in which the 1948 scheme came into operation. We believe that an obligation rests on Parliament and on the Government to deal fairly with this position.
Another thing the Minister said is that if the value or if the amount of the 10s.


pension is increased that will widen the gap between the widow with reserved rights and the widow without reserved rights who, under the new scheme, would get no widow's benefit at all. In a sentence, the Minister says that it would be unfair to widen the gap between the 10s. widow and the "no-shilling" widow. We take the view that we should not be widening the disparity between the 10s. widow and the no-shilling widow if what we did was to restore the real value of the 10s. That does not widen a gap. It seems that it cannot widen the gap to restore the gap to what it was in real terms, and that is the issue.
The Minister also said, on 24th November, 1960:
It seems unfair when there are two women living alongside each other, both widowed and childless at the age of 30 or 35, that one should have to pay to improve the position of a lady who is already receiving 10s. more than she is. As Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I should find it very difficult to impose National Insurance contributions for that purpose. I would not have the feeling that I was doing the fair thing."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 24th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 1418–9.]
But Parliament decided, under the 1948 scheme, to give 10s. a week to certain widows living alongside other widows who were getting nothing at all. This was the basis of the reserved right and, if anomaly there is today, anomaly there was to begin with. Parliament decided that it was not an anomaly to preserve the right to the 10s. a week widow's pension in cases where a widow would have been able to claim that under the old scheme but was denied any benefit at all under the new scheme. I cannot see that we are imposing any injustice on the National Insurance contributor by preserving the real value of the 10s. than we were originally imposing to provide the 10s. in the first place.
The Minister referred to two other matters which weighed against making the concession which we seek. First, he said that 20s. is too much if it is the restoration of the value of the 10s. of 1948 in terms of current value. If that is the Minister's difficulty, we can meet him. If he is willing to restore the value of the 10s. a week to the real value of 1948, that is our case. Twenty shillings seemed to us to be a nice round figure. What is more, it would probably save

further adjustments in this respect for several years to come. It has been a long time since 1948, and, if experience is anything to go by, it will take a long time to get any further adjustment.
4.0 p.m.
Finally, the Minister said that the total cost would be about £4 million, which was a lot of money, and that if he had £4 million to give away he could think of other and better ways in which to spend it. There is nearly always a better way of spending money than that sought. It is merely an evasion of the issue to say, "If I had the money, I would spend it elsewhere". In this very Bill the Minister is recouping some of the expenditure by taking from 50,000 or 60,000 parents of apprentices the family allowances which they now draw. I am sure that the House will be interested to examine afresh the significance of Clause 8 when we discuss it later on Third Reading.
That is the case for doing something for the 10s. widow. I understand that there are about 100,000 of them. This is not an increasing group of beneficiaries. Some are passing into the qualification for the retirement pension on reaching the age of 60, and there is normal wastage. We make no apology for returning to this subject. Hon. Members opposite have sometimes supported the plea for the 10s. widow and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is not in his place, because he has been a staunch supporter of this case. Some of my hon. Friends have been pressing the Minister at Question Time for some time.
When, on 24th November last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen moved his Amendment, the Committee was moved as well as impressed by the case he put forward. He has deep feelings of compassion for the neglected or ill-treated members of the community who do not always enjoy the full fruits even of the National Insurance or Industrial Injuries Scheme. We have no doubt that this is a deserving case and we hope that the Minister will try to meet it frankly and honestly. Last time we discussed the matter he seemed to be burking the real issue of making an advance.
The simple issue is whether the House is prepared to restore the current value


of a benefit which it decided in 1948 should be part of the conditions of the introduction of the new scheme. Surely the Minister will not ride off, as he did a year ago, by saying that we do not restore the real value of interest payable on investments, we do not restore the real value of savings.
There are some things which people cannot have restored to them in a complex economy such as ours. These are not savings and they are not investments. We are here dealing with National Insurance benefits and we should bring them into harmony not only with the higher cost of living, but with the higher living standards as well. We regard this benefit as something quite distinguishable from annuities or savings or other forms of investment, which are admittedly suffering in present circumstances.
However, we must not get the grievances of the small investors in gilt-edged securities mixed up with the problems of the 10s. widow. That is a separate issue on which Parliament may do something at some time. This issue stands alone in the general fall in the value of money in other directions, and it must be linked in our consideration with the new and higher level of National Insurance benefits generally.

Mr. Harold Finch: I support the new Clause which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). He has already reminded us that we are dealing with a class of widows who came within the provisions of the pre-war legislation. Their husbands contributed to the old scheme and they were, therefore, entitled to the pension of 10s. a week, which was the pension paid to the vast majority of widows at that time.
When the 1946 scheme came into operation in 1948, the conditions applying to widows' benefit were different from the earlier provisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) therefore had to consider the position, and it is clearly established that he felt that these widows should not have their circumstances worsened by the new legislation. It was provided that 10s. a week should be paid to them. However, since then there has been no kind of increase in their benefit.
There have been increases in almost every other respect—National Insurance, industrial injuries, and so on. Widows who come within the provisions of the new National Insurance Scheme have had four increases since 1948. The disregards for National Assistance have been increased and there have been increases for the disabled and for the pensioners and for other widows. What justification can there be for excluding these widows? It is said that their husbands did not contribute to the new scheme. That argument could be applied to pensioners but the pre-war pensioner enjoys the same rights as the post-war pensioner. There have been increases in National Insurance in the same way. So that is not a sufficient argument. It is said that many of these widows are in employment, but I remind the House that many are not and that many are now 50 or 55 or getting on for 60 years of age, and many of them became widows many years ago.
Is it a matter of cost? My hon. Friend said that at one time it was estimated that the cost would be £4 million, but I understand that it would now be about £2 million. What is that compared with the happiness and security which would be given to many widows, many of whom have to seek National Assistance? Why should they be treated differently from other widows? I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this case, for it might appear that he had a grudge against these widows and was excluding them deliberately. What is the trouble?
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to this Clause, which seeks to increase the pension to only 20s. a week. We are asking for a reasonable sum. The figure should, in fact, be more like 30s., but it shows what a reasonable lot we on this side of the House are to put forward a figure of 20s. If the Minister does not accept the Clause there will be a great feeling of dissatisfaction at the non-inclusion of these widows in this legislation. I am glad to support the Clause which, I think, will receive the support of the House generally.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: It is nice to hear the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) acknowledging that


there have been four increases in pensions to other categories of pensioners since 1948. I do not wish to make a political point of this, but it is frequently not in the minds of the public that these increases have been made.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) under-stated the matter. There have been four increases since 1951.

Commander Donaldson: I did not wish to go into the dates, nor to raise this as a political issue. I want merely to emphasise that these increases have been made. That therefore puts me in sympathy with the new Clause now before the House. The 10s. widow ought not to be considered by my right hon. Friend as a matter of a statistical unit, or something associated with the National Insurance Fund on an actuarial basis.
We all realise that the 10s. widow is in a peculiar position, separate from all other types of pensioners, and that these 100,000 people—if that be the number as put by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—feel that they have been very hardly done by. My right hon. Friend is well aware that of the 100,000 there must be a high proportion in my three counties on the borders of Scotland, because I have many occasions to write to him, or to officials in his Department, pleading that something should be done for these people.
I rise merely to make it clear that the House is viewing this new Clause not as a party matter, but as one of human considerations in respect of people who feel a sense of injustice. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept this proposition today. If he does not accept it, I hope that he will make it abundantly clear why, so that those who are faced with the difficulty of meeting these people who feel that they have a sense of injustice can make it clear to them why there should not be an increase in their pensions. It is in this spirit that I have intervened in the debate.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: We on this side of the House are grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for

Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) for his intervention in support of the Clause. I hope that he will carry his support to the logical conclusion, if necessary. I think that it is fair enough today to say that we are not likely to have any interventions from the other side of the House, except from the Front Bench, in opposition to the Clause. It would be difficult for any hon. Member on either side to speak against the simple point of justice contained in the Amendment, and we are all aware, or we should be, that public opinion would overwhelmingly support this modest reform.
We have all had experience, at public and other meetings, of hearing this point raised, and being convinced, as I have been, first, that there is a real sense of injustice on the part of these widows that they have been left behind for so long, and, secondly, a sense of shock amongst other people when they discover that in 1961 we are, still paying by way of National Insurance benefit a miserable rate of 10s. a week. It is an unworthy payment for a great nation at this point of time.
We are entitled to say to the Minister, or to the Parliamentary Secretary, that the stock excuses which have been used from that Box in the past, which have never been very good, are becoming less and less reasonable as time goes by, and that we hope that the Government will do better this afternoon. After all, what is the theory behind these excuses? It is that the 1948 Act did not provide pensions for all widows. It provided pensions for widowed mothers, for widows over 50, and for widows incapable of self-support, and otherwise it said that widows should not qualify for a pension. Therefore, these widows whom we are discussing are, in a sense, in a privileged position compared with others who are not getting any pension at all.
That might have been an argument for excluding them all in 1948. It might have been, and it would have been the logical thing to do in a way, although, on balance, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) did not exclude them. In the special circumstances I think that he was right to include them.
The decision having been made in 1948 that it was right to include them. surely it is insupportable that we should allow years to go by, in which the real value of their pension has been steadily eroded by rising prices, and not do anything to increase the purchasing power of that pension. Surely, once a decision has been made that a certain group of people are entitled to a certain level of pension in our National Insurance Scheme, there is a duty to see that the purchasing power of that pension is maintained over the years?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, other groups have had increases since 1948. The Minister proudly asserts that they have had a number of increases since 1951. The hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said that he did not wish to make a political point of this. I do not think that he could. I think that the increases have been far too few and far too late. Most other civilised countries pay higher benefits by way of social insurance. There have been increases to other groups, but there have not been increases to this group, and there is no logical excuse for making this distinction.
4.15 p.m.
If the Minister says, "After all, this is not a group for which the main National Insurance Scheme is intended", I think that we should remind him that in Clause 1 of the Bill we propose to make increased supplementary allowances to old cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act which are not within the main scope of the National Insurance or Industrial Injuries Schemes. In other words, we are recognising their claim to some increase in their allowances, and it seems to me that if we do that we should equally recognise the claim of the 10s. widow. I put it as strongly as I can to the Minister that 10s. a week in 1961, after the continual increases in the cost of living. is a silly amount, and an unworthy one, and that he ought to think in more generous terms than he has been prepared to do up to now.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I add weight to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson). I confess that from a logi-

cal point of view the position seems absurd. It may be a fact that it can be said that the 10s. widow might well have had no pension at all, and that she is therefore to some extent in a privileged position. All the same, it appears to me that if in 1948 it was decided to bring these widows into a scheme and give them a pension, it is utterly illogical that after all these years, when the cost of living has gone up, they should still receive the same amount of pension.
It would be very much better either to give them an increase to keep them in line with the rise in the cost of living, or—and I think that this would be more honest and even more respectable—to drop them altogether. Instead of attempting to apologise for the 10s. pension, which, frankly, I feel obliged to do when I meet these widows, I would feel very much happier if there was no pension for them at all. That is how I regard what I consider to be a considerable anomaly in this whole situation.

Mr. John McKay: I cannot understand the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). He said that he would be happier if the 10s. pension was dropped. Yet he previously stated that he would be quite pleased if the Clause were accepted. In that event, I should have thought that he would have been very unhappy if the Government ceased paying the pension. The whole position is very peculiar. This is a very small item in the affairs of the nation.
The fact that the Clause has been allowed to appear on the Notice Paper, and can be thoroughly discussed today, indicates that it is in order, and that we are not asking the Government to do anything illegal. The matter is one for free discussion and free judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) really covered the whole point, and there is little any one can add to what he said. But if the Minister does not make a move in the direction of the Clause he will make us feel that he is not adopting a fair attitude in this matter. His arguments have been based on the gap that was created in 1948 between the 10s. widow and the widow who received nothing. He has said that he does not wish to see that gap increased. But what about the gap between the 10s. widow and the widow


who receives the ordinary widow's pension?
Today, the pension of 10s. buys about the same amount of goods as could have been bought for 6s. in 1948. If we increased the 10s. pension to 20s. the gap between the pension of the 10s. widow and that of the ordinary widow would still be greater than it was in 1948. It would be 37s. 6d., whereas in 1948 it was 16s.—the difference between 10s. and 26s.
I am sure that the Minister is not under any pressure from the Government to resist the Clause. Nobody can imagine any pressure being brought to bear in respect of a small matter like this. We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that our inability to influence him is due to his individual outlook. He must take the whole responsibility. He cannot hide behind the Government, or any influence within the Government. Perhaps it is his conscience which will not allow him to take this step. If so, his conscience is quite different from the consciences of his two hon. Friends who have spoken today, and the consciences of hon. Members on this side of the House. We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the Minister is a very peculiar character.
He is a free agent in the matter. There would be no criticism from the Government or from any of his colleagues if he accepted the Clause. Surely, after thirteen years, there is some case for an increase in this pension. Every other beneficiary under the National Insurance Act has had his or her allowance increased. The pension of the ordinary widow has been increased by 118 per cent., as has that of the dependent wife. But we are doing nothing for the 10s. widow. The Minister must try to make a judgment without prejudice. He must not think that we are bringing any pressure to bear upon him in the matter. He is fairly well liked as an individual, and he comes to fairly reasonable conclusions on most occasions. He should try to do so on this.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: The Minister ought to relent on this occasion. I know the attitude that he has adopted in the past. He thinks that this class of widow is particularly lucky to have received 10s.

under the 1948 Act, and that no pension should have been awarded at that time. Therefore, he says that we must not make any change now. But two of his hon. Friends have explained how difficult they find it to make the 10s. widow understand why she should not have an increase when everybody else is having one. It is not only difficult but embar-rasing to try to explain this matter to these widows.
The Minister should try to consider the question from the point of view of the widows themselves. They feel very aggrieved every time anybody else receives an increase. They feel that they have been unjustly treated. They have to buy their food in exactly the same markets. Their 10s goes no further than that of anybody else. They cannot understand why they have been left out of all the arguments which the Minister puts forward when he explains how generous the Government are being to all the other people under the National Insurance Scheme.
These widows are left out of all the calculations, and are told "A mistake was made once, and we must not make another". At one time we regarded these widows as eligible to benefit under the National Insurance Scheme, but we are now telling them that they cannot benefit any further. Even the Government agree that since the 10s. pension was granted prices have risen considerably. Any woman who goes out shopping today knows how prices rise. They will certainly rise during the next two weeks. They have been rising continually, especially for basic necessities. The 10s. was a pittance when it was given and it is even more a pittance now.
Another factor which the Government should take into consideration is that this is a gradually diminishing group of people. Some of them have died, and the others are growing older and going on to old-age pension. In a year when the Government have given Surtax payers a substantial relief, could not the Minister make a special plea to the Treasury for these widows? The Treasury is the nigger in the woodpile, deciding the pauses which are to be imposed both on benefits and on wages. Cannot the Minister show more initiative in relation to this group and a greater willingness to remove the feeling which they have that they have been


dealt with unjustly? It is irritating to them that they never share in the increased benefits which are given.
Let the Minister ask the Treasury to face up to this issue and this year to grant increases to the group of 10s. widows, too.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I should like to join the chorus of support for the new Clause, which seeks to increase widows' pensions from 10s. to 20s. weekly. Much has been said about the conditions under which these pensions were introduced, and I have often heard the Minister hang his case on the fact that these widows cannot expect to be better off than those receiving benefits under the Act of 1948 and that the 10s. pension was offered as a form of pre-1948 compensation. That argument has been adduced so often that one might think that the widow's 10s. pension was a charitable gift from the Minister and his Administration. In fact, the 10s. widow's pension, as it is popularly called, is not charity. It is a benefit which widows receive on the death of their insured husbands. It is well known that the deceased husband must have fulfilled the necessary contribution conditions before his widow became eligible to receive a pension of 10s. per week.
This means that we must look at the problem in a different light—not in the light of charity, but in the light of the fact that this pension was awarded having regard not only to the cost of living and the value of the £ at that time, but also to the fact that it was an insurance benefit which the widow receives in respect of the contributions of her deceased husband. In any event, it is very poor compensation for the loss of a husband.
The Minister and his Department, who are so much concerned with pounds, shillings and pence and legal enactments, are inclined to overlook this important human aspect. If the Minister examined the reason for the introduction of this pension and the background to its introduction he might find that there are persons today receiving a much bigger pension under the

present Act for less insurance contributions than those paid by the deceased husbands of widows who only receive 10s. weekly.
Let the Minister examine two points—first, the position of the insured person who died and who left a widow prior to 1948, his widow qualifying for the 10s. pension; and, secondly, the element of the contribution which that deceased person paid so that his widow could enjoy that pension, compared with the element paid for a much higher pension today. He would discover that the proportion paid, in many instances, by the deceased husband of the 10s. widow was much more than the proportion paid during the post-1948 period by a man whose widow is today receiving a much higher pension, due to the fact that the former paid insurance contributions years for the latter's months.
After hearing the compliments paid to the Minister, and the remarks about his being so courteous a person, it is difficult to understand his obdurate attitude. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) said that he liked the Minister. I do not think that many 10s. widows like him. Here is an opportunity for him to capture their felicitations, too, by accepting the Clause. If he is so prejudiced against the 10s. widows that he is unwilling to give them the modest increase suggested, at the very least he is duty bound to take some account of the fact that 10s. given in 1948 has not the same value in 1961.
This week I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the internal purchasing power of the £, taking it as 20s. in 1951 and showing the value for each subsequent year. The answer was that, accepting the £ as worth 20s. in 1951, its purchasing power in 1960 had been reduced to 15s. 10d. If we add the reduction in its purchasing power in 1949 and 1950 and take into consideration the loss in purchasing power during the past year, we see that the reduction is much mere than 4s. 2d. in the £. It is reasonable to say that since 1948 the purchasing power of the £ has fallen by much more than 4s. 2d.
The very least that the Minister could do would be to restore the purchasing value of the 10s. pension, which the


widow receives to its purchasing value of 10s. in 1948. That is a reasonable request to make to the Minister. It is difficult to understand why it has taken so long to prevail on his sense of justice, and I beg of him that he will at least promise from the Dispatch Box this afternoon that he is willing to review the attitude which he has adopted towards this widows' pension.
There is no need for any right hon. or hon. Gentleman to explain that a person cannot be expected to survive on 10s. a week. The hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) made that abundantly clear to the Minister. We have only to look at the family allowances; some members of the family are receiving 10s. a week. Yet we expect a grown-up woman who has lost her husband to be content with a pension of 10s. a week.
I believe that the Minister's unwillingness to face up to the problem is due to political cowardice. I am sure that he agrees with each and every one of us that 10s. a week is a disgracefully miserable pittance to offer to any adult in the United Kingdom, having regard to the fall in the purchasing power of the £ and the rise in the cost of living since the 10s. pension was introduced. The festive season is near, and I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause and ensure that all the 10s. widows in the country can look forward to an increase of 10s. weekly and a brighter Christmas than they have had for many years.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I apologise to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that I was not present to hear him move the new Clause, but I have listened carefully to subsequent speeches. The hon. Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) supported the new Clause in most persuasive terms. It is difficult to oppose a new Clause which is set out and supported in such terms. On the face of it this is a very reasonable case, but, in effect, the hon. Member for Sowerby is asking us to move these widows into the other group of widows.

Mrs. Slater: No.

Mr. Gower: I will justify what I am about to say, and I will give way in a moment to any hon. Member who wishes to contradict me.
The intention is to move them into that group which enjoys the full widows' pension. After all, if the new Clause were accepted, we could not hold the position there. The widow who received 20s. would ask, "Why should we receive only 20s. while others who are over 50 receive so much more?" That would be a logical and reasonable thing for them to say.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member said that he did not hear my speech and it is, therefore, a little difficult for him to know what I am asking. Had he been here he would have heard me say that all we were seeking was the restoration of the value of 10s. in 1948 terms, and that we were not asking for these 10s. widows to be brought into the new benefits. As he knows, these widows are not entitled to the new benefits, either the widow's pension or the widowed mother's allowance, and it would be unreasonable to ask for them to be included. It is simply a question of the restoration of the value of the pension.

Mr. Gower: I accept that. I was informed that that point had been made by the hon. Gentleman. But one of his supporters asked, "How can a woman live on 10s. a week?" He would be just as entitled to ask, "How can a woman live on 20s. a week?"
Ministers from both parties have refused to increase this award. The value of 10s. has been progressively reduced ever since the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), for reasons which were probably entirely valid, decided against including this group of widows in the new scheme. Not only the supporters of this new Clause, but also the widows, would be entitled to say that it is iniquitous—I forget the word which was used by hon. Members—that a widow should receive only 20s. a week—just as entitled to say that as they are to say that it is iniquitous that a widow should receive only 10s. a week. I agree with hon. Members who have asked, "How can anybody live on 10s. a week?" It is impossible. How could anybody live on 20s. a week? That would be equally impossible.

Mr. Dempsey: They would be able to live better on 20s.

Mr. Gower: Not in the sense of living, because no one is able to live on such a sum.
There is another group of widows. If their husbands die when they are under 50 years of age, they receive the full widow's pension under the current scheme. Another group of widows under that age who have certain dependants receive an additional pension. But there is a third group of widows under that age who do not receive the 10s. pension. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a large group of widows under 50 years of age who do not receive a widow's pension, not even the 10s. Their sense of grievance would be increased if the 10s. widows' pension were increased to 20s. a week. I accept that the present widows' pension may be given at slightly too high an age, but that is a different point.
4.45 p.m.
I should like my right hon. Friend to tackle this problem in a different way, namely, to refer the question of widowhood once again to his National Insurance Advisory Committee. I realise that that has been done several times, but hon. Members on both sides must have discovered that a woman whose husband dies when she is just under the qualifying age, for instance, a woman of 49 years and 9 months, is often in the same position as a woman of 53 or 54.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going outside the new Clause.

Mr. Gower: I shall not enlarge on that point, Sir Gordon.
If we wanted to give a benefit to widows covered by this Clause, it would be more reasonable and logical to do it in some other way. I cannot see that it could be held at this figure, or that the acceptance of this Clause would establish a position in which people would say, "This is reasonable and satisfactory". We must take a much larger decision. We must say that it is reasonable that all the widows who receive this pension should receive the full pension. That is a much bigger step than the Opposition are asking us to contemplate. It would be a big departure, and I should like to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about it.
Although I find it difficult to say anything against the objectives of the hon. Member for Sowerby and his hon. Friends, I hope that they will reflect that we are here considering a difficult matter which has baffled, not only my right hon. Friend and his predecessors on this side, but also Ministers of their own party. It has been a baffling problem. There is something so helpless about the expression "10s. widow". It is a phrase which has an appeal. As has been said, it is terribly difficult to explain to these people why they are in this group.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: They are worse off under this Government.

Mr. Gower: I do not think that that is a fair comment.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said that my right hon. Friend would not accept the Clause because of political cowardice. It would result in political popularity, not political cowardice, if the new Clause were accepted.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the widow in receipt of the 10s. pension at least should receive the value of that pension, as she did in 1948? Is there anything unreasonable about that?

Mr. Gower: No, if it comes out of some other fund. But it is not easily reconciled with the National Insurance Act, or with our system of contributory pensions. If my right hon. Friend could pay this proposed increase out of some other fund on the lines of the National Assistance principle, I would agree with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, this is a matter which the House as a House and as a Committee has discussed an very many occasions. However, it remains true, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) said, that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said, there is something evocative about the phrase "10s. widow".
The picture is conjured up as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie tried to conjure it up, of someone trying to


subsist in 1961 on 10s. a week. I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that that is not an argument which has any relevance to this matter. It would be relevant if we were talking about a pension on which anyone is expected to live. It might be relevant to a proposal to put the women about whom we are speaking on the modern National Insurance level. But it cannot be relevant to a proposal which would move them from one level on which no one is expected to live to another level on which no one is expected to live.
I had much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) when he referred to the illogicality of the situation. There was much force in what he said. It may be that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has reflected over the years on whether he was wise to make this provision. But there is certainly no logicality in fixing this figure at 20s. or at any figure which does not begin to be a subsistence figure unless one accepts the quite extraordinary argument of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice).
It is wrong to describe this as a National Insurance provision, as the hon. Member for Sowerby did. It is simply an old provision preserved by the National Insurance Acts. It is not part of the National Insurance Scheme. The hon. Member for East Ham, North said that, when something has been fixed by one Government years ago, there is an automatic duty on successive Governments at least to maintain its value. I cannot accept that argument as sound either constitutionally or, still more, from the point of view of social policy.
Many of my hon. Friends will remember—we discussed this in the sunshine of Bournemouth earlier this year—that it was said that our social services ought to move on to a more selective basis and should deal more with cases of need and that there should be less spreading of benefits regardless of the need for them. We should not get anywhere with that if we accepted the thesis of the hon. Member for East Ham, North, that once a benefit has been fixed, then, however circumstances change, however obsolescent, out of date or out of tune with modern social thinking it may appear, it must be preserved. He is almost going as far as the Marquess

of Salisbury, the grandfather of my noble Friend Lord Salisbury, who once said, in another place, "Heaven forbid that I should ever touch a vested interest".
That is the situation into which the hon. Member for East Ham, North is getting. I cannot accept his argument. If we are to apply the very large sums of money which all Governments provide for the social services so as to make them of most use, we must be free, as money becomes available, to apply it in places where it will, in fact, be of most use. We should not find ourselves automatically bound by the wisdom or un-wisdom of our predecessors.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North supported the thesis of the automatic revaluation of all benefits by referring to Clause 1 in which, as he pointed out, we are making an additional provision for those whose benefits came under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, but, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, on the ground, which he himself urged, of the hardship of the people concerned. I suggest that that is the right approach. We should look at the facts of the case and decide whether on grounds of hardship, need and humanity it is the right way to apply such money as becomes available. It is wrong to say that we must automatically preserve benefits which were laid down years ago.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my argument. First, he says that he does not follow me, because I am not in sympathy with what was said by some of the most reactionary elements in his own party at Bournemouth. Of course I do not accept their point of view. Secondly, he refers to Clause 1. Neither my hon. Friends nor I have argued that the benefits should be increased on the ground of hardship. We say that they should be increased on the ground of justice. We claim that if Parliament laid down that there should be a modest pension for these widows, it seems logical that that pension should maintain its purchasing power unless there are special reasons against it. Those reasons against it have not been forthcoming.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman confirms my


analysis of his argument, the automatic maintenance, regardless of circumstances, of the value of a pension fixed years ago by another Government. On his second point, he underrates the speeches that his hon. Friends made, giving the most moving accounts of the hardship of those affected. The hon. Gentleman must not overrate the moving and, as the event proved, effective speeches made from both sides of the House on that issue which caused this Government to feel that hardship must be remedied. He cannot throw that overboard and adopt this argument now.
If we are to consider this matter sensibly, it is essential that we should be clear in our minds about who are the ladies in question. All of them, without exception, are widows receiving a widows' pension at the 10s. rate whose circumstances, apart from their reserved right under the old Act, are indistinguishable from those of widows who today receive no pension at all.
The hon. Member for Sowerby indulged in some neat dialectic in which he said that we would not widen the gap between those two women by taking a step to restore the value of the 10s. pension. He would widen the gap if he paid them 20s. instead of 10s. The argument that by increasing the pension from 10s. to 20s.—in fact, 20s. represents in value substantially more than the original 10s., but that is by the way—we should not widen the gap is not one that the House can be asked to accept. It would be widened in current terms by precisely 10s.
In a social system, which has been very carefully worked out and accepted by both parties, to pay widows' pensions on a selective basis broadly concentrating by way of a much higher widows' pension resources on the widows who need them and leaving other widows without pensions, how can we justify taking out of the contributions of those people something to up-rate the benefit of widows whose circumstances, apart from this reserved right, are identical with those whom society has said should have no pension at all?

Mr. Finch: The 10s. widows are those whose husbands contributed to the National Insurance Scheme. The husbands of the other women who are not

in receipt of a pension did not contribute to any scheme. We are here considering contributions under the old Act and under the present Act.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The husband of the widow under the new scheme, who, because she was under 50 when widowed or has no young children, receives no pension, has been contributing very much more than the husband of the widow under the old scheme who gets 10s. contributed for on the much lower levels of that time.
5.0 p.m.
As I was saying, the difference is that under the new scheme all widows do not receive permanent pensions, although all widows do receive the widow's allowance for 13 weeks at the high rate of 80s. Widows are not given permanent pension under the new scheme unless they have young children, are over 50 or—and this has now been translated into sickness benefit—they are sick and unable to work. Under the old scheme widowhood as such was pensionable.
That is the reason for the difference between the two schemes. I know that I carry the right hon. Member for Llanelly with me here, because he was responsible for carrying through the change. I am certain that that change was absolutely right, because it enables a concentration of benefit to be made on those who need it, and gives a much more satisfactory pension than otherwise would be possible.
Secondly, I do not believe that, socially, it is a good thing that a young, fit childless widow should regard herself as being in a permanently pensionable position. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in making that change, and it is simply because of the preservation by him of the old pension for widowhood as such at the 10s. rate that we have the 10s. widow surviving alongside and in comparison with—and only in comparison with—the no-shilling widow of today. With the working through of the transitional provisions, we now have the position that any woman with a 10s. right, whose circumstances would approximate to those which would give a pension under the new scheme, has, in fact, been brought on to the new scheme rates. We


are dealing, in effect, with the younger childless widow.
The argument is adduced that because the value of the 10s. pension has been eroded we ought to increase the amount. If the provision that one was concerned with was part of the current social provision of the day I would broadly, subject to finance and the rest, agree. But it is not. It is quite inconsistent with current thinking. Therefore, it is much more a reserved right, like many other rights, to money payments which have unhappily diminished with the years.
The hon. Member for Sowerby took me to task for having on a previous occasion made a comparison with those people who have invested in National Savings certificates, or even perhaps in Daltons, who have bought an annuity, who have cashed savings of one kind or another, all of whom, of course, have suffered from the change in the value of money. I think that the hon. Gentleman can only distinguish this case from those if he can show us that this is a real, live, valuable social provision. If it is not, I suggest that the case is analogous to other rights for payment of money, honourably and properly acquired rights, in respect of which people have undoubtedly suffered loss of income by reason of the change in the value of money, but which do not come within the category of the social provisions which the State feels it is its duty to provide and to increase with the changes in the value of money.
It is interesting that that is a point which hon. Members opposite have intermittently taken. The hon. Member for Sowerby became quite moving when he referred to this as a binding obligation, and said that this is part of the deal. His colleagues did not take that view in 1951 when they increased the retirement pension by a certain amount. This 10s. had already fallen in real value to 8s. 5d. but there was no belief then in the obligation; there was no reference to this being part of the deal. The right hon. Member for Llanelly who made the deal, if there was a deal, did not apparently take that view at that time. It is a little late for the hon. Member for Sowerby to come back with it now.

Mr. Houghton: After ten years?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Let us come to more recent times. Let me refer to the National Insurance Act, 1959, and to what was said by Mr. Hilary Marquand. Incidentally, I am sure that we are all sorry to realise that we must now refer to him as the former right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East. When winding up for the Opposition on the Third Reading of that Measure, he said, of the 10s. widow:
… I do not think that they have a fully justified grievance, although they think that they have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1959; Vol. 606, c. 836.]
At this time it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member for Sowerby to take the high line that this is an absolute obligation, that this is part of the deal and that we are in honour bound to implement it. The matter is much more difficult. It is a matter which we have to consider on its merits.
As I have said, this Clause—I make no great point about it—goes substantially beyond what would be needed even to restore the value; 6s. 5d. would be enough, but it proposes an increase of 10s. It is a substantial sum. It is not one which this House will wish to dispose of lightly, particularly at this moment. Although I put no great weight on this fact, the Clause is framed with exactly the same defects as the hon. Gentleman's proposal was in 1960. It does not do anything like what it sets out to do. It bites only on those who were already entitled to pension on 5th July, 1948. It does not touch the others. As I pointed out that fact to the hon. Gentleman, and as he has tabled the Clause again in the old form, one is left in some doubt as to what his intentions are.

Mr. Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman must stop making that point against us. He knows full well what we want to do. I beg him to stop picking holes in the Clause merely because it does not satisfy all the technical requirements. If he will give us on this side of the House the benefit of the services of the civil servants which he enjoys, we will get it right. But until then we shall have to do our best. I therefore beg of him to drop this approach and to deal with the merits and substance of the matter, instead of worrying the guts out of our


proposals merely because they are not 100 per cent. accurate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman must not get so excited. If we had not had this before, I would not have reminded him of it. But we had this proposal before, and, therefore, he does not suffer from the advantage which he previously did. When he again puts down a much more limited new Clause he must take some responsibility, and not refer to me as picking out, as I think he so eloquently put it, the guts—if there are any—of the Clause.
Coming to the merits, I must not leave the hon. Gentleman with the impression, which he appears to have and which appears to be shared by his hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), that we have not given careful consideration to the position of these widows. On the contrary, I referred the whole position of widows to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. That Committee reported in 1956, after full consideration, that any real grievance that these women had could be met if we were prepared to provide them with what colloquially I may call the flying start—in other words, that they should be treated as fully paid up for sickness and unemployment benefit. If, when their widow's pensions ended after 13 weeks, they were unfit to work on grounds of health or unable to find suitable employment, they would be provided with benefit at the same rate as the widow's pension. I accepted that recommendation on behalf of the Government, and in that same year, in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, I made that provision. I have no reason at all to doubt from experience that that advice was wise and right, and dealt with the substance of the matter.
Hon. Gentlemen have mentioned the question of hardship. One hon. Gentleman referred to supplementation from National Assistance. In fact, the proportion of 10s. widows in receipt of supplementation from the National Assistance Board is not much more than half the proportion of other National Insurance widow beneficiaries who receive that supplementation; and that, indeed, is what one would expect. These are the women without the commitment of

young children, who, if ill, are now provided with sickness benefits for themselves up to the full rate, and who, if unemployed, can draw unemployment benefit and in whose case one would not expect, particularly at a time like this of high employment and good earnings, that there would be hardship in their case. There is the fact that the supplementation figures are only half of what they are for the National Insurance widow beneficiaries generally.

Mr. William Ross: Is it half the figure, or the proportion?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Half the percentage. The percentage in the case of National Insurance beneficiaries is about 15 per cent., and in the case of the 10s. widows it is about 8 per cent.
Therefore, we are not dealing with a class that is in difficulties. I must risk incurring the hon. Gentleman's disapproval, but the cost of his Clause as it stands, confined, as it would be, to those drawing pensions in 1948, would be, very roughly, £1 million a year. The cost of what he says he intends to do would be not much short of £3 million a year.
I rest my main objection to this proposal on the objections of principle that I have put, and on the basis which I hope the House will accept, that we have honestly tried, with the advice of the Advisory Committee, to do what was right in respect of these widows, and that we have, in fact, done so. Even if hon. Members do not accept that view—it is my own view, to which I have given considerable thought—I hope that they will equally accept the view that, particularly at this moment, an expenditure of this order, additional to any existing social provisions is not one which it would he responsible to contemplate. Nor, would I say, is it one to which I should give priority.
The hon. Member for Sowerby made some play with the argument of priority, but he knows, as everybody who has been in office knows, that the nub of a ministerial job is very often deciding just that—which provision should take the money that is available; and we all know, though I should be out of order to go into them, that there are many directions in which we should like to see improvement and expansion.
I honestly could not suggest to the House that, if one accepts to the full the arguments that have been put, and accepts them at their full face value, a case has been made out, in 1961, at a time of stringent economy in public expenditure, requiring that we should give a preference to a section of society that has not been demonstrated to be suffering hardship over all other claimants in our social services system. Therefore, I must, on that ground as well as on the others, ask the House to reject the new Clause.

Mr. Ross: I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) who said that the Minister had a reputation for being very courteous and very nice, and that he wondered at it. I do not wonder at it at all. I do not think there is anyone who can say "No" more courteously, with more conviction or with more irrelevance to the argument. The right hon. Gentleman has answered arguments that just have not been put up.
My hon. Friend did not speak about hardship; he spoke about injustice. He spoke about a right that was there, and which ought to be maintained. I thought it a little unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to quote a former colleague of ours, Mr. Hilary Marquand, when he implied that, when dealing with this kind of new Clause that we are putting forward, he said that he thought that the 10s. widows had not fully justified their grievance. The grievance of these 10s. widows is that they want to be raised to the full modern rates, so there is nothing inconsistent with what he said there and what my hon. Friend said today.
Let us look at the facts. There is one that people seem to forget in this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman certainly did, and it concerns the changing value of money. He seemed to think that my hon. Friend had put forward a new principle which we were demanding that the Government should accept. He knows quite well that in giving these pensions on retirement, they are pensions that were earned pre-1946, as well as others. He proclaimed that we were raising the pensions not only as much as the change in the value of money merited, but beyond it.
I remember the right hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister at the Treasury, and dealing with pensions paid to old public servants and the rest under the Pensions (Increase) Act, declaring, for the same reason, that the change in the value of money justified those pensions, to which there was no statutory right. It was just a little unfair of him, when we apply to widows the same principle which he has accepted for other, and in many cases better off, sections of the community, to say "No". Even with all the courtesy and conviction which he produced, he did not convince me.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the sunny skies of Bournemouth and changes in considering hardships. When we consider the interpretation of hardship and the priorities placed by the Government side of the House—the hardship of the £5,000 a year man struggling to raise and educate a family, the prior needs of the Surtax payer to the tune of £80 million or so next year, can he wonder that we rather resent the argument which he has put forward here? It will cost only between £1 million and £3 million to give this measure of legal justice to the 10s. widow. The right hon. Gentleman is not likely to be the "pin up boy" of the 10s. widows tonight.
5.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman almost painted a picture of affluence among; he 10s. widows. He suggested that there is nothing to worry about here, and that he is placing no hardship upon them. But these 10s. widows, to earn retirement pensions at 60, have to pay the full insurance, and the amount of insurance they have to pay is 8s. 8d. per week, which itself practically erodes the whole of the 10s. When the right hon. Gentleman talks rather learnedly about 'he value of money, I think that it would be only fair to say that with some people the burden of the National Insurance and National Health Service contributions, which he has placed upon them by his own actions, certainly brings it near to the figure which we suggest here as meeting the case.
I am very glad that two Scottish Unionists—I must not call them Conservatives—not only had the courage to speak, but had the courage to oppose the Minister. I hope that they will show


an even greater measure of courage than some hon. Members have done in the past. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that he was tired of apologising for the Government in the case of the 10s. widow. I agree with him, and I hope that he will have no cause to apologise for what he does when the vote is taken, because a Tory in the Labour Lobby is worth far more than Tory speeches from back benchers. It carries far more conviction in relation to what they are doing.
I think that the hon. Members' speeches were well worth while. I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) who, before he noticed that the two hon. Members opposite were present, said that he did not think that anyone on the benches opposite would rise and support the Minister. He must have forgotten the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower).

Mr. Dempsey: He was not here at the time.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Barry is Wales's gift to the Tory Front Bench. One day he will make a mistake and will oppose his Front Bench. On this occasion I did not think that he did even himself justice.
The fact is that this is not a gift which we are seeking to give these people. This is an entitlement which was earned for them by their late husbands, by the contributions which they paid during their lifetime. There is always the dilemma of new legislation in relation to the transition from the old to the new. I do not think that it was a dilemma that faced my hon. Friend. I think that the dilemma was probably whether the amount should be 10s. or whether we should bring these people up to the new rate. Let us remember that most of those who already had the 10s. were, for one reason or another, brought up to the rate of 26s.

Mr. James Griffiths: If I may take the House back to those days, the position was that we introduced a new kind of widow's benefit under our scheme. I found that by introducing a widow's benefit of a new kind, the 13 weeks' allowance, the children's allow-

ance and the disability benefit some widows would be left without the pension—the widows whose husbands had contributed under the old scheme for a widow's pension of 10s.—at the age of 60, without any qualification whatsoever. I did not fix the 10s., nor did my party. The party opposite fixed it years ago. I undertook, under the new scheme, that if these people would not enjoy the new benefit, I would reserve and pay to them the benefits for which their husbands had paid under the old scheme.

Mr. Ross: We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking us back as he has done. It gives me an additional argument to put to the Minister. I wonder that the Minister himself did not seek to remove the 10s., because, while it remains, it must be a constant reminder to the nation of the standard of benefits which the Labour Government inherited in 1945. It was then 10s. for the widow and 10s. for the pensioner. It was from that low standard that we made our improvements in 1946.
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has once again adopted the attitude which he has shown today. I think that he has tried as hard as he could to cover the shame of his party in relation to the 10s. widow with as many words as possible, though quite unsuccessfully. The 10s. widows will retain their grievance. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) who said that every time a change is made in the rate of widow's pensions that grievance is renewed and that bitterness is again expressed.
These widows represent a diminishing number of people. They tend to be between the age of 50 and 60 and most of them are forced out to work because they have to pay their contributions in order to earn their retirement pension. It would have been only fair had we faced up to the fact that a decision was taken in 1946—a decision which came into force in 1948—that the 10s. should be kept up to date. Simple justice is enshrined in the purpose, if not in the words, of our new Clause, and I sincerely hope that we shall be joined by those two Unionists from Scotland who expressed themselves in favour of the Clause as well as by


every other hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady on the benches opposite who feels a that this is the least that we can do for these widows.

Question put, That the Clause be read Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 246.

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[5.25 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holt, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Sir Barrett
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Callaghan, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, T. W, (Merioneth)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Darting, George
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfred (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, David
Stones, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dempsey, James
McCann, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James



Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt Hon. John
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPerson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Fernyhough, E,
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, John


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Wade, Donald


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
Warbey, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Milne, Edward J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Monslow, Walter
Wilkins, W. A,


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, John
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gunter, Ray
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pargiter, G. A.



Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick
Dr. Broughton.


Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Aitken, W. T.
Bidgood, John C.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Arbuthnot, John
Biffen, John
Brooman-White, R.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bishop, F. P.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Barber, Anthony
Black, Sir Cyril
Bryan, Paul


Barlow, Sir John
Bossom, Clive
Buck, Antony


Barter, John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Bullard, Denys


Batsford, Brian
Box, Donald
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Burden, F. A.


Bell, Ronald
Boyle, Sir Edward
Butler, Rt. Hn. H. A. (Saffron Walden)


Berkeley, Humphry
Brewis, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)




Cary, Sir Robert
Hollingworth, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Hopkins, Alan
Pitman, Sir James


Chataway, Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pott, Percivall


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior, J. M. L.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis


Cooke, Robert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ramsden, James


Cooper, A. E.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Rawlinson, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Hugh


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, David


Coulson, J. M.
James, David
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ridsdale, Julian


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jennings, J. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Critchley, Julian
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robertson, Sir D.(C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roots, William


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Russell, Ronald


Curran, Charles
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Seymour, Leslie


Dance, James
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, M.


de Ferranti, Basil
Kitson, Timothy
Shepherd, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leather, E. H. C.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Doughty, Charles
Leburn, Gilmour
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smithers, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lindsay, Martin
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Speir, Rupert


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stevens, Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Longbottom, Charles
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Longden, Gilbert
Storey, Sir Samuel


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Forrest, George
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, William


Foster, John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Temple, John M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Freeth, Denzil
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gardner, Edward
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gilmour, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gough, Frederick
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Mills, Stratton
Vickers, Miss Joan


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Walder, David


Grimston, Sir Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker, Peter


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Morrison, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Gerald
Webster, David


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Whitelaw, William


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wise, A. R.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hiley, Joseph
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Hobson, John
Percival, Ian



Hocking, Philip N.
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holland, Philip
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Noble.

New Clause.—(EARNINGS RULE NOT TO APPLY TO WIDOWED MOTHERS.)

(1) No deductions shall be made from a widowed mother's allowance in respect of her earnings; and accordingly section seventeen of the National Insurance Act, 1946 (which provides, inter alia, for such deduction), and certain enactments and regulations, which amend that section and are mentioned in the Schedule

(Repeals in connection with widowed mother's allowances) to this Act, are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.

(2) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by the Minister by an order made in the form of a statutory instrumen and laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Ross]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is simple and I hope that it commends itself to most, if not all, hon. Members. This is, again, a matter which we shall have to take to a Division if we do not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister. However, I am more hopeful this time. The Clause seeks to remove altogether the earnings limit in respect of the personal part of the widowed mother's allowance.
In Committee, I suggested that a notice should be put up behind the Minister's table in his office saying, "Beware of widows, especially young ones". It is only fair to say, however, that in respect of widowed mothers the Minister, over the past few years, has shown a very warm and human attitude, both in respect of benefits and in respect of the subject we are discussing.
The amount which widowed mothers can earn has risen. it is now £5. The rise itself has placed the National Insurance Advisory Committee in a dilemma. It wants to know exactly where we are going with the earnings rule. The personal allowance was supposed to take account of the fact that a mother with children could not go out and earn her living. I do not think that there is any dispute that, improved as the benefits are, a widowed mother cannot be expected to keep her family in the comfort and standards she has every right to expect on the allowance given to her and her children under National Insurance and by family allowances without some augmentation of that income.
The total allowances received by a widowed mother with three children are £6 14s. 6d. a week. The widowed mother's allowance for herself and the first child is £4 2s. 6d.; the allowance for the second child is 17s.; the allowance for the third child is 17s.; and she receives 18s. by way of family allowances.
Everyone who has studied the earnings rule has said that, if ever there was a case in which it could be altered without great complications and consequential anomalies, this is the case. That is why we have limited the Clause to widowed mothers. It does not affect retirement pensions or widows. The retirement pension is paid because the

person is presumed or proved to have retired. If we attempted to abolish the earnings rule in relation to the retirement pension, we should come right up against the first requirement of paying the retirement pension, namely, retirement.
When one realises that a woman in receipt of widow's pension automatically, when she reaches the age of 60, has that translated into retirement pension, one realises that there is a relationship between the ordinary widow's pension and the retirement pension. But the widowed mother's allowance is a transitional benefit. When her children grow up she gets a widow's pension and my hon. Friend's and I are pressing that while she is in receipt of a widowed mother's allowance—for she must maintain her family single handed and may consider that to do this best she should go to work—there should be no earnings limit at all.
The arguments against doing this in the past appear to have been that if one made this alteration one would be helping the widows who go to work and earn more than £5 but, at the same time, one would be doing little or nothing more for widows doing perhaps part-time work or no work at all. This seems a very unfair argument. It was used, I think, on the last occasion we debated this subject. It seems peculiar to argue that one should do nothing for anyone unless one does something for everyone.
A study of this subject will soon reveal that if something can be done to improve the circumstances of the widows under discussion, it should be done. When the National Insurance Advisory Committee last considered the Minister's increase to £5 the Committee was faced with a measure of dilemma because its members, too, would rather that something was done for everyone. The Committee pointed out, however, that the amount of money available would have been insufficient to do anything either for widows in relation to their allowances or for their children.
Thus, the Committee agreed because, at that time, the Minister was not merely increasing the earnings limit in relation to wages. He was actually making a change. It was because the right hon. Gentleman made that change and widened the gap—by 30s. compared with


the earnings rule for ordinary widows, of £3 10s.—that we have every justification now to seek to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to remove it altogether. We want him to appreciate that, in this field, this change can be made without any complications concerning the retirement pension.
I do not wish to traverse the entire subject, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will not seek to divide the widows in the way I have described, just to make a debating conquest. The majority of widows who go to work do so because they must. It is a question of striving to bring up their families and to give their children a chance. When one appreciates that, single-handed, they are making this struggle, one must surely realise that they are entitled to our help. After all, we are talking about widows with children. These children have exactly the same appetities as those whose fathers are alive. They are just as hard on clothes, especially school clothes—and practically every school has its own uniform.
5.45 p.m.
I urge hon. Members to realise the household and other expenses these widows have. They are just the same as in a family where the husband is able to help his wife to cope with all the problems of family life. We are, therefore, entitled to make the change proposed by my hon. Friends and I sincerely hope—and I appreciate that the Minister is as sympathetic towards this as anyone—that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to make the change and will not allow this fear of anomaly or comparison—that we are unable to do something for everyone—prevent him from making this reasonable and justifiable alteration.

Mr. J. T. Price: I fully support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who put forward, in a reasonable fashion, powerful arguments for making the change that we propose. There are other reasons which strongly appeal to me. For a woman bereft of her husband and claiming benefit under the terms of the Act, while her children are still young and going to school she is, in most cases, bereft not only of the consortium of her husband—I think that is the legal term—but she is also outside

certain provisions of the financial system of taxation.
As soon as she enters widowhood and begins to cope with the problems of bringing up her family—and she may be living in a house which has been obtained by mortgage—she has all these additional liabilities with which to cope. At that stage she not only loses the financial support of the breadwinner, but she receives, if she is subject to taxation by way of Income Tax, only one allowance for herself and not the joint allowance—I think it is £280—which would normally be payable to a husband and wife.
I have never understood this arrangement, although I am familiar with it and I have tried to go into these problems. Why, because a widow chooses to assist her family income by going to work—to earn an extra £5, £6, or £8 a week—should the Ministry be relieved of part of the liability of paying her the full widowed mother's allowance? While we cannot completely avoid an anomaly in this respect, many hon. Members cannot understand—and I shall welcome anything the Minister may say to enlighten me—why it should be argued for the Government that because a woman chooses during widowhood to earn herself such additional income as she may she should receive this lesser benefit and the Ministry should be relieved of its full liability under the Act.
Many hon. Members—and I may be as guilty as any of them—fall into the error of supposing that many of these benefits are in some way tinged with relief, that because of the introduction of an earnings rule, which is another form of means test, there should be diminution of benefit. I do not consider that this is justified under an insurance scheme. The Government Actuary, who advised originally on the foundation of the scheme from an actuarial viewpoint, surely did not put any loading factor into his calculations that a certain proportion of widows would not qualify for the full benefit because they chose to earn money in suitable employment.
Therefore, with those two additional arguments—first, that there is not available to a widowed mother the full allowances of taxation under our tax system that would fall to the household if the


husband were living, and, secondly, that this is an insurance scheme paying a specified rate of benefit in respect of a substantial rate of contribution, which, under our system, is constantly rising—I suggest that the time has come to look more compassionately and more favourably upon doing something to remove what, we believe, is a relatively unfair position for the widowed mother.
I know that the widowed mother will get the allowances provided by Statute for the children, but if a woman in this position, in addition to the domestic hardship of having to battle with life without a husband and bringing up children, shows herself so adaptable to her new circumstances as to go out and earn a reasonably good living that will maintain the family in the status to which they have been accustomed, she should not be penalised by a diminution of benefit under the existing regulations.
Therefore, without wishing to exaggerate or to elaborate further, I sincerely hope that on this occasion the Minister will respond in the way in which my hon. Friends have asked him to do.

Mr. Percy Browne: I rise again, as the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. J. T. Price) has done, briefly to support the Clause. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he said that the Minister and the party to which I belong have lifted the widow, from the point of view of benefit and the earnings rule, above the average level which is given to many other people. That is quite right.
The new Clause opens up generally the operation of the earnings rule, with which I disagree. If I were to go into the pros and cons of the earnings rule now, I should be out of order, so I shall, therefore, keep to the new Clause.
We are all agreed that the widowed mother who is, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock pointed out, under pensionable age is in a special position. The chances are that when she loses her breadwinner, especially if she has young children to look after, she has to go out to work. This being the case, it seems to me entirely wrong that we should by law take away some of her benefit if she is prepared to go out and earn

money above a certain limit. That can be said generally about the earnings rule.
At present, the position is that we do not want to "shell out" too much public money. Why I like the Clause particularly is because subsection (2) states that
This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by the Minister by an order made in the form of a statutory instrument and laid before Parliament.
I congratulate hon. Members opposite on the Clause. I rather wish that I had put down a proposal about credits for seasonal workers on the same lines. It never occurred to me and it was too late when I saw the new Clause, or I should have done so.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause. He cannot advance the argument that he is unable at this moment to provide funds to operate the Clause, because he does not need to implement it when the Bill comes into force. If he agrees, as I am sure he will, in principle that it is right that the earnings rule should be extinguished for widowed mothers who are drawing their allowance rather than their pension, he should accept the Clause and put it into the Bill rather than bring forward new legislation on another occasion.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I support the new Clause. I am delighted that my hon. Friends have put it down, because in Session 1959–60, having been successful in the Ballot, I promoted, together with some of my hon. Friends, a Private Member's Bill to do precisely what my hon. Friends now seek to do. Again this Session, having been successful in the Ballot—although, unfortunately, I am so far down the list that my hon. Friends are quite right to seek to remedy the anomaly in this way—I have done the same thing again, largely with the same supporters as I had two Sessions ago.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), whose support on this occasion we are delighted to have, will, I hope, follow us into the Division Lobby if we have to divide the House. One of the things which attracted the hon. Member about the Clause was that the Minister was not called upon immediately to find the money.
The position under the existing law is that if any widowed mother wishes, or


has, to cease working, the Government have to meet her pension in full. In the original Act, the Government took power to meet that situation. The operation of the earnings rule prevents a widow in that category from receiving the pension in full. If, however, for any reason she decided to finish working, her pension rights would have to be met in full by the Government.
I agree entirely with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) about the special responsibilities of widowed mothers to their families. One thing which I should like to add about the position of the widow—it applies not only to widowed mothers, but to widows in general—is the great loss which industry, commerce and the professions suffer when women have to leave their employment. There are a vast number of people in jobs such as nursing, physiotherapy, radiography and in hospitals. These people are trained to do a skilled and necessary job for the community, but, upon marriage, they have to leave their work. I should have thought that to encourage widows with those qualifications and who desire to do so to go back to their employment would be highly desirable.
I have never accepted the theory which is advanced in some quarters that when a woman marries, whether she becomes a widow or not, she should cease to have any interest in her profession or job. She is perfectly entitled to go out to work and should be encouraged to do so if she wishes.
The main argument against the retention of the earnings rule for widowed mothers under the National Insurance Act is the gross inequality which is applied to widows who become widowed as a result of the normal hazards of life and the different treatment accorded to widowed mothers under the Industrial Injuries Act and to other widowed mothers.
6.0 p.m.
Even today, there are large numbers of people who do not realise that if a husband loses his life at work, the widowed mother is not subjected to any earnings rule. She can earn as much as she likes. To repeat an example which

I have given before, if a man is driving a bus and the bus crashes and he is killed, his widow is able to go out to work and earn as much as she can get. If the bus driver had ceased his employment half an hour beforehand and was a passenger in the bus when it crashed and he was killed, his widow would be subjected to the earnings rule. This distinction is completely indefensible. Whenever one puts it to people outside, they at once describe it as an outrageous distinction. It has gone on for a long time and Parliament should put an end to it.
When I introduced my Bill in 1959–60, I was struck by the enormous volume of correspondence which I received from all over the country and from all kinds of organisations, particularly women's organisations. I have been a Member of the House for 16 years, but never before had I had such a volume of correspondence.
The Minister is well aware of these arguments, because I had the honour to lead a deputation from the National Council of Women to meet him some time ago. He was sympathetic and listened to us courteously, but the right hon. Gentleman raised again the difficulty of creating fresh anomalies. What the Minister did not say to us on that occasion—and I have not heard him or any other Minister from his Department say anything about it in the House—was whether he could justify the continuation of this anomaly between different types of widowed mother. Can he possibly justify the widow of the man killed at work not being subject to the earnings rule and the widow of the man who dies, as it were, a natural death at home being subject to it? These are some of the matters about which we should hear from the Minister. It is for this reason and the reasons which we have heard from both sides of the House that I hope the Minister will agree to the Clause and bring it into operation when he and his colleagues in the Government consider the time convenient.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: When we discuss pension cases or the earnings rule, I often find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) because, like him, I have a constituency with many


seaside towns and with many retired people and with a certain number of widowed mothers with children. I have had arguments with the Minister when I have found myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington concerning the earnings rule, although quite often we have been torpedoed by the superior science and knowledge of the Minister in some of the cases which we have put forward.
I have, however, been very much impressed by the arguments put forward by the Opposition in support of the new Clause, and particularly by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) when he pointed out that when a person is killed in action or dies of industrial injury the earnings rule does not apply, although it operates when a person dies naturally, despite the fact that the circumstances of the widow are exactly the same in all cases.
I hesitate to speak about increases of any kind when we are in the period of the pay pause as part of our economic policy. I have supported it because I do not wish to see an increase in the cost of living in the country as a whole. The cost of the new Clause cannot be very much. I know of only two cases in my constituency of widowed mothers with children who are affected by the earnings rule. Obviously, in the country as a whole the number is higher. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say what the cost would be if the new Clause were accepted, but, in general, I must say that I find myself very much in sympathy with the new Clause and I hope that the Minister will find it possible if not to accept the new Clause during the period of the pay pause at least as soon as possible afterwards.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I just add two or three words in support of the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and supported by speeches made on both sides of the House? I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a sympathetic response to the representations which have been made to him on this subject and that we shall not be met with some stony, obstinate refusal that to make this concession would produce administrative anomalies, for it seems to me that here is real hardship where we can take a well-defined though probably not very

numerous category of widows and can make a relaxation of the earnings rule, a relaxation which is required on all considerations of humanity and justice.
Personally, I am against the earnings rule altogether, but on this new Clause that wider question of principle does not arise. Here we are dealing with a small, limited number of cases in which, I submit, special considerations arise. Widowed mothers are in a class by themselves. They are not pensioners.
I speak about this matter because only in the last few months I have had two specific cases come to my notice, and they illustrate the difficulty which faces a married woman, perhaps around 50, with two or three children who suddenly loses her husband, not as a result of an industrial accident, in which case she is fully protected, but as a result of some other misfortune—ill-health, as it happened to be in both these cases—causing the sudden, unexpected death of the husband and father.
One case concerns a woman in her forties with young children who is faced with this sudden, unexpected emergency. What is she to do? While her husband was alive she was bringing us those children in reasonable comfort, two of them at grammar schools and the other being educated with natural prospects of a reasonable education; living in the sort of comfort which a woman can enjoy if her husband is enjoying a reasonable income. It is bad enough in all conscience for a woman to find herself suddenly placed in that emergency, but apart from the bereavement and misery and tragedy due to the loss of her husband there is financial loss. In the two cases I have in mind each is a brave, courageous woman deciding that she must continue to try to earn as much as she can in order that while the young children are still at school they may be able to qualify to go out into the world for themselves, and she must try to give them what they would have had if her husband had lived. She can do that only by going out to work.
As one knows, a great many married women in the circumstances of today can earn a reasonable income. It so happens that these two women, before they were married, had secretarial qualifications which enabled them to obtain a reasonable salary. To do that would, of course,


mean obtaining assistance in the house. It is only by such a method that these brave women, anxious, quite naturally, to do the best for their children, can try to maintain them in the same kind of state which they would have enjoyed had their husbands lived.
On what grounds of principle should they be deprived by this earnings rule? Why should they not be entitled to the allowances which the State gives them under what is, after all, an insurance scheme, and why should they not also be enabled to earn—and retain—as much as they reasonably can without having to sacrifice their contributions from the Exchequer? On what ground of common sense and equity in this society in which we live can that be justified?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there is ancient and honourable authority and injunction specially to help widows and orphans in their affliction, and it seems to me that this is one way in which we can do it and in which we ought to do it. I hope that no question of administrative difficulties or anomalies will be used, in answer to this new Clause, in order to frustrate what I am sure is not only the wish of both sides of the House but would accord with what it seems to me to be the ordinary common sense of humanity and decency.
Reference has been made to subsection (2) of the new Clause. It is perfectly true that in some ways it should be a comfort to the Minister. It would enable him, in accepting the new Clause, to say, if he wanted to say it—I hope he would not—that no immediate charge would fall upon the Exchequer. It would enable him to say that because of the present parlous state of the economy this ought to be deferred for a time. Personally, I hope that the Minister will have the courage not merely to accept the Clause but to announce that it is his wish to bring it into force at the earliest possible date. But, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the second part of the Clause would enable the House—I hope we shall agree upon this—to write into the Bill what we all think is fit and required by justice and equity to be enacted, leaving the time for its introduction to be decided as and when the Statutory Instrument is brought forward.

Mr. Charles Curran: I support the new Clause, and I do so with my eyes open, recognising that if it is carried we shall be creating a new anomaly in place of an old one. I hope that the Minister will accept the fact that we are hoping for a new anomaly.
We recognise that many objections have always been raised to this change, this scrapping of the earnings rule whether for a widowed mother or a widow or any other people subject to it. We are always told that if we do that we start a chain reaction, that if we do it for one group we shall have to do it for all other groups throughout the social services. I recognise that in the long run we should have to do this. It is because I recognise that this chain reaction will flow ultimately from this new Clause that I support it.
The earnings rule is something which should never have been imported into our social arrangements. Although previous speakers have avoided any reference to the circumstances in which the earning rule was invented, and also to the arguments which have been used for it, I think it is just as well, before the Minister replies, to look back at them, because he has, of course, got a formidable debating case for it against the background of the earnings rule as applied to widows and to others.
On what basis does the State decide that a benefit should be paid to someone with the limitation that if that person earns a further sum of money the benefit paid by the State shall be reduced or abolished? Why does the State ever say that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member realises that the new Clause applies to widowed mothers?

Mr. Curran: I do. I am saying that the arguments which will be used in defence of the existing state of the law relating to widowed mothers are arguments which have very much wider implications. I want to guard myself against the reply from the Minister that, "It is all right to say you are voting for this in vacuo, but in fact you cannot vote for it in vacuo; you have to accept the implications of voting for it, and they will spread right through the social services."
We invented this earnings rule after the war for widowed mothers and retirement pensioners as well. We did so because after the war it appeared that the big post-war risk would be unemployment and that we should, therefore, try to keep people off the labour market rather than encourage them to stay in the labour market. We did it for a further reason, which was the fear that if we provided people with money and allowed them to work that might act as a subsidy to wages and might therefore tend to reduce wage rates.
6.15 p.m.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that trade unions have always had this almost pathological fear that if we put into the labour market a lot of people getting benefits from the State those people will tend to work for less than trade union rates. The unions have always wanted an earnings rule of some kind because of that fear. I was glad to hear a speaker on the opposite side of the House ignoring that completely unreasonable fear and speaking up plainly in favour of getting rid of the earnings rule. After all, if a trade union cannot maintain wage rates without penalising widows or without penalising pensioners then the sooner that union goes out of business the better.
These two fears led to the invention of the earnings rule. The difficulty now is that if we try to abolish it in respect of one class of sufferers, we run the risk—and it is a real risk, it must be admitted at once—that by abolishing it for one group we shall be forced to abolish it for other groups.
At this point we are always told that to do this would cost a very large and indeed unpredictable sum of money. I hope that when the Minister replies he will grasp this nettle as well.

Mr. W. Griffiths: We are not seeking to create fresh anomalies. What we are seeking to do is to bring the widowed mothers into the same position as the war-widowed mothers and the widows to whom the provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act apply and so to bring them into the same relationship with those two other classes.

Mr. Curran: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman.
This is, as the servant girl said, only a little one. I know; but, nevertheless, it is the inevitable if unfortunate fact about little ones that they presently grow up to be big ones. I recognise all that. I imagine that the cost of the new Clause would be very small indeed. But when we are arguing in favour of this, we must face the fact that it is perfectly true that, although this is a financial trifle, once we start tampering with the earnings rule in one respect we shall be forced to go on and tamper with it in many other respects. I think that consequence will follow. It is because I accept and want that consequence that I support the new Clause.
This earnings rule both as it is applied to widows and also as it is applied to retirement pensioners is something which causes a bitter sense of unfairness in this country. People argue, quite reasonably, "These are insurance benefits. We have paid for them. We ought to get them as a matter of right, not with strings tied on to them." This feeling of unfairness goes on festering. Members of the Government, colleagues of the Minister, are concerned nowadays, and quite rightly, about the social climate of this country. They all recognise, as we on these benches do, the need for carrying everybody with us if we are to make economic changes. So we have to try to remove any sense of unfairness. I believe that by tackling the earnings rule on the lines proposed in the new Clause we shall make a real contribution.
Many people feel, and with some reason, that where the earnings rule is applied there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. They see that people can retire from their job at 60 or 65 and receive a pension as a right with no questions asked, whilst widows, like retirement pensioners, do not receive the pension as a right with no questions asked but are subject to this limitation. This contrast leads to a widespread and festering sense of unfairness.
It also leads to a great deal of "fiddling". Some widows evade the operation of this rule by earning money in small sums and keeping quiet about it, just as there is a sizeable number of pensioners who similarly avoid the rule by earning money on the quiet and not telling the authorities about it. This leads to a feeling of uneasiness. People


are afraid of anonymous letters and informers. A good many people, through the operation of this earnings rule throughout the social services, are led to the fringes of the law. For this reason also it would be highly desirable to get rid of it.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), I should like to draw the Minister's particular attention to the proposal in the new Clause that
This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by the Minister by an order made in the form of a statutory instrument and laid before Parliament.
I find this feature highly attractive and I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on his ingenuity in putting it into the Clause. It blocks up one of the great bolt holes—the plea that we are voting at once for an additional payment which may be large and certainly will be inflationary. This provision enables the Minister to impose a pay pause of his own in respect of the earnings rule.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that the need for this is extensive and the demand for it widespread. We members of his party will vote for both because we think it right and a matter of fair play and also because we all want to create a new anomaly—thereby hoping that in the not very long run we shall get rid of the earnings rule completely.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) for the point of view that he has put forward. I disagree with him when he says that the trade unions should be strong enough to make certain that if this type of person is employed in industry he should not be employed at a wage-rate lower than that of the ordinary citizen. If I went into the history of how the earnings rule came about I should be going outside the scope of the debate. I would only say that it was due to the massive unemployment in the country at that time.
I urge the Minister to accept the new Clause. I can think of one case of this kind among the many with which I have had to deal. It is the case of a widow whose husband was a regular worker on

seven shifts a week, receiving a reasonable income. He died suddenly and left her with four children to bring up. She lived for several years in dire poverty. She could not go out to work because the children were young and she had to do whatever was possible to make ends meet. It was pitiful to see her trying to do her best to manage on a mere pittance.
Only someone who has been forced to live on that kind of income can imagine how a person in those circumstances can exist at all. Later, when the children grew up this woman obtained a part-time job but then her widow's allowance was reduced. There are many such cases where women are doing their best to bring up their children as we would like to see them brought up and to give them a reasonable education. There are also minority cases where it is not necessary to pay the widow anything because of her capacity to earn a reasonable salary. That possibly may be at the back of the Government's mind when, from time to time, they refuse to abolish the earnings rule.
In spite of the fact that we have a wages pause and that the Government think that we should cut down on expenses, we are not entitled to refuse any longer to carry out the provisions embodied in the new Clause. We ought now to give the consideration which they deserve to these widows who have carried out the great responsibility, in dire need, of bringing up future citizens. I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause and will take into consideration that subsection (2) gives him power to bring its provisions into operation at a future date.

6.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for the moderate and sincere way in which he moved the new Clause. I will try to reply in the same vein. The debate has ranged over pretty nearly the whole of the National Insurance Scheme and I will try to reply to the points made in a certain order.
First, there was the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock which I would put briefly as asking


whether the new Clause would not make the best use of available resources. Secondly, there was the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) about the basis on which we deduct from a benefit where there are earnings. Thirdly, came the comparison with the industrial injuries widows. So far as I do not cover other points under those three headings, I will do my best at the end.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock posed a problem which on this side of the House we always have to face, when we consider the expenditure of any money on any aspect of the National Insurance Scheme. The problem is posed very vividly by this proposed new Clause and was, of course, considered, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The cost of the Clause would be about £1½ million.
Perhaps it would help if I gave the numbers of people who are at present in receipt of widowed mothers' allowances. There are about 148,000 widowed mothers' allowances in payment. Some 20,000 of these women suffer adjustments under the earnings rule. Thus, only 20,000 of the widows would, at present, be affected by the Clause. What we must consider, were this £1½ million available now—and we have considered this problem in the past—is how best to use that money. Should it be used in favour of widowed mothers who are able to go out to work? Or should it be used in favour of those widowed mothers who, because they have more or younger children, cannot go out to work, or, perhaps, can only do part-time work, earning so little that they would not come within the scope of the earnings rule?
Were we to accept this Clause we should be deliberately helping those widowed mothers who, compared with others, are considerably better off because they can go out to work. We should thereby, by implication, be preferring them to those who cannot go out to work. We should, of course, be preferring women such as myself—professional women—over and above those who have young children or who live in areas where they cannot get reasonably highly paid jobs.
As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock pointed out, the earnings rule for the

widowed mother is at present at the level of £5. That is not something to be dismissed lightly. Hon. Members will be aware that when one sits in Opposition one pleads a cause, but standing at this Dispatch Box one has to consider what would be the very best use of resources.
My right hon. Friend takes the view, which has been endorsed by the N.I.A.C. in the past, that we should use the money in order to increase benefits to those who are hardest hit. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred very kindly to the work of the N.I.A.C. on this problem, when the earnings limit was raised for widowed mothers' allowances from £4 to £5 a week. I should like to read out the whole of paragraph 10 dealing with this relaxation. It states:
We have complete sympathy with the widowed mother and would like everything possible to be done to help her. There have been many suggestions that the earnings rule for widowed mothers should be abolished and any relaxation of the rule will doubtless be widely welcomed. A relaxation of this rule will, however, mainly benefit widows whose family circumstances permit them to undertake a substantial amount of work, or whose work is relatively well paid. It will not help the widow who cannot readily leave her children and go out to work. We should accordingly prefer to see any additional expenditure on this benefit go to increasing the basic allowances for the mother or her children.
That was the recommendation. I will read the rest of the paragraph. Hon. Members will never find me reading selected passages out of paragraphs without trying to give the whole picture. The paragraph went on:
We understand, however, that the amount which the relaxation of the earnings rule would cost would not be enough to improve the basic allowances significantly. In these circumstances we do not feel able to object to the proposed relaxation.
That was written just before the earnings rule was relaxed in April, 1960. It was upon that proposed relaxation that the N.I.A.C. was commenting. As a result of the relaxation, the widowed mother got a £5 earnings limit which, of course, gives her a considerable preference over other National Insurance beneficiaries. In deciding to make increases in 1961, we could have done what this Clause proposes or what in essence the N.I.A.C. proposed, which was to increase the basic benefit to the widowed mother who cannot go out to work.
We chose the second course. We chose to increase all the benefits, throughout National Insurance, which affect the widowed mother. I do not make any particular point of that, but we also increased the benefit payable in respect of the children of the widowed mother by an amount over and above the amount of the increase for the children of other National Insurance beneficiaries. The child of a widowed mother now draws 7s. 6d. more than the child of a person who is unemployed or who is in receipt of sickness benefit. Until April, 1961, the child of the widowed mother drew 5s. more than the children of other National Insurance beneficiaries.
The cost of giving this preferential increase to the widowed mother who could not go out to work because of young children was about £1¼ million. I do not think that anything turns on the odd £1¼ million. My point is that when we were faced with this choice of how best to deploy the resources we felt that we should follow the N.I.A.C. and give it to the widowed mother who cannot go out to work.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady has a point there, but does she imply that this benefit was given only to widowed mothers who were not working? If it was given in respect of the children, then it was given in respect of all widowed mothers.

Mrs. Thatcher: It was indeed, but it will help most of all those who are unable to go out to work, and that is the particular category which we thought we should help in preference to others.
I now turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I am grateful to him for raising it. He asked on what basis we reduced benefit when there were earnings. It was a point which I had not completely comprehended before coming to the House. Fortunately, I believe that I did comprehend it before coming to this job. It goes to the root of the whole scheme. I do not think that some of those who complain to us about this rule fully appreciate the significance of the change from the old scheme to the new scheme which was made in the 1946 Act.
The whole basis of the new scheme is that one contributes against the con-

tingency of interruption of earnings. One contributes to get benefit when one's earnings are interrupted by unemployment or by sickness, or because one has reached the age of 70 for a man or 65 for a woman or has retired from work during the preceding five years. One is insured against interruption of earnings. It is not an unimportant point but one which goes to the whole basis of the scheme. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that it applies also to widows' benefits. One contributes to a scheme which supplies benefits when earnings are interrupted, but when earnings are not interrupted those benefits are not payable.

Mr. J. T. Price: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to interrupt her very charming argument, which she is putting with great ability. I can put her mind at rest on one matter concerning the question underlying most of the scheme. I had to live with it at close quarters from 1946 to 1948 when the basis of the law was changed.
The fundamental distinction in 1948 was that, for the first time, this scheme was put on an insurance basis with the payment of substantial premiums. We claim, as reasonably and forcibly as we can, that the £1½ million she now says would be represented by this Clause is really the £1½ million provided as a relief to the Ministry by holders of policies of insurance, and that the disposal of these benefits is not a matter for the Minister. I know that under the Regulations the House is talking of where to put the money instead of giving it to the people mentioned in this Clause, but surely this money is being given by beneficiaries through their willingness to go out to work. It is not provided out of the Exchequer at all.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman comprehends the basis of the scheme. But I must say that at certain times he seems to do his best to conceal that fact. The question remains: What is one insured against? The answer remains: One is insured against interruption of earnings. It is for that reason that there is an earnings rule. The discussion ranged widely over the earnings rule and I do not want to follow certain hon. Members into all its vicissitudes.
I would point out, however, to those who made reference to the earnings rule


for retirement pensioners that if we want the earnings rule abolished—and certain hon. Members said that if this proposed new Clause came into effect one would ultimately have to abolish it—we would also have to abolish the increments scheme which goes with it. The scheme of increments is extremely valuable, is rapidly maturing and enables people very quickly to acquire a larger weekly income because they go on working when they have the option to retire. I will not pursue that further, but it is an important point.
So the reason why widowed mothers' allowances are subjected to an earnings rule goes to the root of the whole scheme. Were we to abolish the rule for the widowed mother, we should promptly come to the question of what we were to do when she ceased to be a widowed mother and became a widow for the purpose of National Insurance. At that time, she would have been drawing 25s. a week for the last child dependent upon her. According to this proposed new Clause, having been subject to no earnings rule, at the time of going over to the widow's pension—which would also be the time when perhaps she could earn more—she would come under the operation of the earnings rule, having lost a benefit for a dependent child.
I do not think that this position would be tenable. Naturally widows would at that point feel aggrieved and would lobby hon. Members, who would be able to put their case very well. We should then have to give way on the earnings rule for widows' pensions as well, and ultimately right through the system.
The cost of doing so for the widow pensioner would be some £5½ million on top of the £1½million for abolition of the earnings rule for the widowed mothers' allowances. If one took it all the way through, it would mean an extra £100 million for the abolition of the rule for retirement pensioners as well. The case I am trying to argue is not that there is any inconsistency in the present position but that the basis of the scheme is quite consistent in this respect for the widowed mother, and does not produce any anomaly.
I now turn to the comparison with the industrial injuries widow. One point strikes one immediately in this. If com-

parison for the National Insurance widowed mother with the industrial injuries widowed mother is undertaken, likewise comparison of the National Insurance widow with the industrial injuries widow must follow.
6.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths), who put this point, on this argument would support my contention that we could not stop at releasing widowed mothers from the earnings rule because the same argument based on the comparison with industrial injuries widows would likewise apply to the widow's pension. The arguments against assimilating the two go very much deeper than that. One contributes to the N.I. scheme in order to be insured against interruption of earnings and one contributes to the I.I. scheme to be insured against loss of life or injury because of the extra hazards at work over and above those in ordinary life. One contributes a certain amount for compensation for loss of faculty or, in the case of a widow, compensation for the loss of a husband. One is insured against something completely different.
The war widow's pension is not on a loss of earnings basis but is a compensation for the loss of a husband and it is entirely different. There is nothing unreasonable or illogical, if one contributes to certain schemes, in getting the benefit of those schemes when the contingency takes place. It is unfair to take one feature of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, which is what the hon. Member did, and try to assimilate the N.I. widow when the features of the I.I and the N.I. schemes are different throughout. The benefits are different and there are many different features. I have sat through all the debates on the Bill and have heard many arguments against the N.I. Scheme. I sometimes wonder whether it would be better to abolish the whole preference for the industrial injuries, but I do not think that would be in accordance with the wishes of hon. Members.

Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Lady has been saying that there is a difference between industrial injuries insurance and National Insurance concerning the widow. The widow has still the same number of mouths to feed whether her husband has been killed in the factory or, as so often


happens, because of an illness or debility which follows from his employment but is not directly attributable to his work, he dies. It is well known that illness happens and death sometimes follows as a result of certain conditions. I should remind the hon. Lady that before she became a Minister she took a slightly different view about this proposal than she takes now.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, I think that the hon. Member is quite wrong. I went on television in support of the very argument which I am trying to put to the House. In his observations about the I.I. widow, the hon. Member put up a very good argument for abolishing the preferential rates and conditions for the I.I. widow and for assimilating them into the N.I. scheme.

Mr. Griffiths: Not at all.

Mrs. Thatcher: The entire basis is different. It has a different historical basis. Compensation is one of the reasons for the difference. Various figures have been given in the debate and I wish to give one or two. With an earnings rule of £5 we should consider what the widow with one child, the widow with two children, and the widow with three children, respectively, has left, assuming that she is earning right up to the £5 limit. I believe that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock gave the benefits paid in one case. I interpose the point here that it is £5 net. It is not necessarily the amount which the widow receives in her pay packet. She can deduct from that anything which is deducted by way of P.A.Y.E., anything she has to pay by way of national insurance, fares to work, the cost of having someone in to look after her children, and the cost of tools, protective clothing, trade union subscriptions and the like.
When she has deducted all that, she can be left with £5 net. The widow who has £5 net and one child, with what she gets from N.I. and family allowances, will have £9 2s. 6d. If she has two children, she will have £10 7s. 6d. and if she has three children £11 14s. 6d. I am well aware that none of that represents luxury, but that widow is not at present in any way touched by the earnings rule because her net earnings do not bring her within it. The personal benefit of

57s. 6d., which is the only benefit in the widowed mother's allowance which can be extinguished by earnings, is not, in fact, extinguished until her net earnings reach eight guineas a week.
I shall now try to answer some of the points which have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that children had the same appetites after their fathers had died as when they were alive. That argument applies with equal force to children of widowed mothers who do not go out to work. They have children who have similar appetites to those of the children whose mothers go to work. Therefore, one should give as much to those who do not go to work.
There is the further point in subsection (2) of this proposed new Clause which attempts to suspend its operation until such time as the Minister may decide. I hope that I have said enough to make the House appreciate that I am opposing the new Clause on merit, and for the reasons I have given. It would be entirely dishonest to accept it without having any intention of putting it into operation. I also submit, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), that if he is to vote for this new Clause in the avowed desire to get the whole basis of the scheme changed from its present one of interruption of earnings, perhaps this is not the best way to go about it. If he is going to do that he should do it after due consideration of the consequences and having a very good idea of what he would put in its place.
For these reasons, I recommend the House to reject the new Clause.

Mr. Houghton: If I speak briefly I hope the House will understand that my hon. Friends have a very important meeting upstairs at seven o clock. I am most anxious that we should bring our discussion on this new Clause to an end before that time.[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite have meetings upstairs and they must understand what a nuisance it is to have a whole assembly disturbed in the first few minutes after the meeting has begun.
I shall therefore compress my remarks into a very few minutes, although I should like to have spent more time replying to the hon. Lady and to the


debate. First, I wish to point out that the hon. Lady was the first hon. Member in the whole House to defend the existing arrangement and to oppose the new Clause. On this occasion, not even the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) stayed to defend the Minister. Unthanked and unrewarded, he has deserted the Minister on this occasion. The whole House has approached this new Clause with sympathy and support.
I want to make quite clear to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) that it is not the purpose of this new Clause to open up substantial consequences regarding the earnings rule as a whole. We thought that this new Clause could be accepted by the House without setting up a chain reaction on the earnings rule generally. The widowed mother has been distinguished from the widow and from retirement pensioners for a very long time. First, the gap was 10s., then it became 20s. and now it is 30s.—the difference between the upper earnings rule for the widowed mother and for other beneficiaries. So the House has already distinguished sharply, and to a growing extent, between the widowed mother and the earnings rule in her case, and widows and retirement pensioners.
This new Clause would carry that differentiation to the point of abolishing the earnings rule for the widowed mother. That is all that is intended in the new Clause. The hon. Lady said that the earnings rule for widowed mothers, as for other beneficiaries, goes to the root basis of the whole scheme. The root basis of the whole scheme is not the earnings rule. The root basis of the whole scheme is adequate benefits. Paragarph 346 of the Beveridge Committee's Report, on this very point dealing with the new benefits for widowhood, says:
For widows of working age no permanent pension will be provided, but every such widow will receive a widow's benefit at the same rate as maternity benefit for 13 weeks. At the end of that time, if and so long as she has the care of dependent children, she will be entitled to guardian benefit. This with children's allowances will be designed to be enough for subsistence even if the widow earns nothing by work. If she does go out to work, a reduction of the full guardian benefit will be made, of a proportion of her earnings.
Those two things were linked—adequacy of benefit without a reduction if she did

not go out to work, but, if the widow goes out to work, a reduction would be made in the full guardian benefit.
We have to provide the widowed mother with an adequate benefit without her going to work. Who will say that £6 14s 6d. a week is an adequate benefit for a widowed mother who has three children and who does not go out to work? We know that it is not.
The truth is that by the inadequacy of the benefits widows are forced to go out to work. Then an earnings rule is applied in the sacred name of the principle which the hon. Lady says is the root basis of the whole scheme. These two things must be considered together. Unhappily, Clause 8 will worsen the position of many widowed mothers by depriving them of family allowance for their apprenticed sons if they bring in more than 40s. a week. There are 50,000 apprentices affected by Clause 8. The widowed mothers will undoubtedly suffer some of the disadvantage, along with other parents.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge that the additional expenditure incurred by lifting the earnings rule for widowed mothers would toe inflationary, for it would mean more widowed mothers would be contributing more to the national economy. At present we are deducting from the benefit the additional earnings beyond the £5 which the widowed mother can get by work. She is discouraged from earning more than £5 a week. Under our proposal she would be encouraged to work more and to earn more. I regret that the response by the hon. Lady has been unfavourable, but this problem will be with us for some time to come. I have no doubt that there will fie a persistent endeavour to secure a revision of our approach to the earnings limit.
Valuable and wise as I believe the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee to be, this House has not yet surrendered to that body its right of absolute judgment on a matter of this kind. If ever the time comes when the House can function only by adopting recommendations of outside bodies, we might as well go out of business. We have our job to do. Acknowledging at all times the selfless service of the advisory bodies, we still


reserve the right of the House to decide for ourselves.
7.0 p.m.
The truth is that throughout the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee of 27th January, 1960, was a note of displeasure at what the Government evidently intended to do. That can be seen running through the Report. In paragraph 4 the Committee says,
We take it, therefore, that it is the Government's deliberate intention to make the earnings rules more generous than they are at present.

The Committee could see no reason for departing from what it had said previously. It had to acknowledge that the Government intended to liberalise the earnings rule, which is what we did in the earlier part of 1960.

I am afraid that I must ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in favour of the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 216.

Division No. 35]
AYES
[7.1 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Herblson, Miss Margaret
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Kelley, Richard
Slater Joseph (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Stones, William


Dempsey, James
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Diamond, John
McInnes, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dodds, Norman
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Swingler, Stephen


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, John (west Lothian)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Timmons, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Warbey, William


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Milne, Edward J.
Watkins, Tudor


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmthn)
Monslow, Walter
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, Wiliam (West Fife)
Parker, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Redhead and


Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman
Dr. Broughton.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Arbuthnot, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival, Ian


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, John


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barter, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Batsford, Brian
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel
Pitman, Sir James


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hiley, Joseph
Pott, Percival



Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bell, Ronald
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pym, Francis


Berkeley, Humphry
Hobson, John
Ramsden, James


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hocking, Philip N.
Rawlinson, Peter


Bidgood, John C.
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Biffen, John
Hollingworth, John
Rees, Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Hopkins, Alan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Clive
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Renton, David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brooman-White, R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roots, William


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Ronald


Bryan, Paul
Hulbert, Sir Norman
St. Clair, M.


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Seymour, Leslie


Bullard, Denys
Iremonger, T, L.
Sharples, Richard


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, M.


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Shepherd, William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jennings, J. C.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speir, Rupert


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stodart, J. A.


Cole, Norman
Kimball, Marcus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cooper, A. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col- J. K.
Leather, E. H. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Corfield, F. V.
Leburn, Gilmour
Talbot, John E.


Coulson, J. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Lindsay, Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Litchfield, Capt. John
Teeling, William


Crowder, F. P.
Longbottom, Charles
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


de Ferranti, Basil
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaren, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


du Cann, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, Colin


Duncan, Sir James
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Emery, Peter
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walder, David


Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marshall, Douglas
Walker, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Webster, David


Farey-Jones, F. W.




Farr, John
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fell, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Finlay, Graeme
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C-
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Stratton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, Denzil
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wise, A. R.


Gammans, Lady
Morrison, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gardner, Edward
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Sir John
Neave, Airey
Woollam, John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Goodhew, Victor
Nugent, Sir Richard



Gower, Raymond
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Noble and


Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Gordon Campbell.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF GUARDIAN'S ALLOWANCE TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES AND ORGANISATIONS.)

(1) Section nineteen of the National Insurance Act, 1946 (which contains provisions entitling persons in certain circumstances to a guardian's allowance and further provides for the modification of certain of those provisions by regulations), as modified by regulations under that section or under section six of this Act, shall apply to a local authority or a voluntary organisation or a person with whom a child is boarded out by the Minister or by a local health authority or local education authority (or in Scotland an education authority) in respect of a child who for the time being is in the care of that local authority or voluntary organisation or is boarded out as aforesaid as it applies to a person in respect of a child who is for the time being a child of his family.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new Clause is quite clear from the wording. The aim is to secure that those who take over the guardianship of children shall all be recognised as having the same rights to guardian's allowance under the Act.
Having been successful in securing from the Minister certain changes in the present provisions about guardians' allowance in Clause 6, I hope that when I draw his attention this evening to what strikes me as another anomaly he will be equally forthcoming and flexible in his mind and responsive to the point which I am bringing before him. This has arisen in very much the same way as the matter which led to Clause 6. We all know that as we go about our constituencies and our Parliamentary work we discover little lacunae in the legislative provisions of various kinds which we have not appreciated before. They may seem to be quite minor, but they can have a substantial and severe practical effect on the life of the people. This is how the new Clause came to be on the Order Paper.
I was recently in my constituency at a meeting of a body called The Friends of the Blackburn and District Orphanage and Children's Homes, a body which has been in existence for over half a century and which has done invaluable work in taking into its care abandoned, orphaned and generally unhappy children who have not been fitted anywhere else into

our social system. Quite clearly a body of that kind is doing necessary work and is doing it well. It is inspected by the Government authorities, and if were not a reputable organisation it would not be allowed to continue. Equally clearly, it is doing a piece of work which nobody else is doing, because although the local authority from time to time asks it to take certain children into its care and custody, those children sponsored by the local authority form quite a small minority of its forty-two children. The rest have been put into its care at the request of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or by the direct application of persons who can no longer continue to take charge of the children, or sometimes even the welfare officer of the local authority will recommend someone to apply to the Orphanage and Children's Home at Blackburn to see whether it can help. It is doing work which would not be done otherwise.
7.15 p.m.
When I was helping in an appeal to raise funds, I was astonished to discover that the Blackburn and District Orphanage is totally dependent on voluntary funds and receives no official support except when the local authority specifically puts a child in its care. In that case, the local authority pays the orphanage £3 5s. a week towards the maintenance of the child. But, of course, this is a matter of agreement. There is no statutory entitlement to this sum. I understand that when arrangements of this kind are made by local authorities with voluntary organisations the terms of financial assistance given by the local authority are negotiated locally and are flexible and varied.
As I say, I was surprised to find that these voluntary bodies, children's homes and orphanages, are not entitled to any sort of social service payment. On making further inquiries, I discovered that they have made representations to the Minister on this point. For instance, I understand that the National Council of Associated Children's Homes, to which the Blackburn and District Orphanage belongs, has made repeated overtures to the Minister asking that family allowances payable to children in the home's care should be paid direct to the home.
I believe that occasionally there is payment of the family allowance. For instance, when the home admits a child in respect of whom family allowance is payable, it gets in touch with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance at Newcastle. The person who is entitled to draw the family allowance in respect of the child in the care of the voluntary home is entitled to continue to draw it from the Ministry on condition that it is forwarded to the voluntary organisation which is taking care of the child. Apparently, from time to time the Ministry checks that this sum is being forwarded. If for some reason the individual who is drawing it has not forwarded it to the voluntary body, the Ministry cancels the family allowance when the pension book needs renewing, and thereafter no payment is made to anyone.
I am told that the Blackburn orphanage has had cases in which as much as £40 has been drawn in family allowances in respect of a child put in its care which has not been passed to the orphanage, and the person who has wrongfully drawn the allowance has been prosecuted by the Ministry.
In these cases, the orphanage receives nothing. That is why these voluntary homes and organisations have asked that, since the Ministry recognises that it is a sensible principle that the family allowance should come to them in this way, it should be paid to them direct, because clearly a child which needs support is getting it and a child which otherwise would have had a payment from the Government is thrown entirely on charity if that payment is not forwarded to the body which has officially taken over the care of the child.
It is clear that there have been patchwork arrangements in the past which recognised that it is a reputable principle that a voluntary body which takes over the job of bringing up a child of family allowance age should be considered to be in loco parentis and deserving of financial help under our social services for doing this admirable work.
It may well be that the Minister will argue, as some people have argued, that we could not possibly pay the family allowance direct to an institution because it would be a contradiction in terms, and that family allowances are payable, by

definition, to help family incomes. However, that has been stretched a little by practice. I suggest that the same argument does not apply to the guardian's allowance and that is why—I see that the Minister is getting a little nervous and restive—I tabled my new Clause in this form in an attempt to foresee any legalistic or bureaucratic difficulties. I tabled it partly, perhaps, influenced by the knowledge that I have had a little effect on the Minister in this sphere and partly in the hope that I might be twice lucky.
I suggest that the payment might be by way of guardian's allowance because that allowance is already paid outside the family circle. It is payable to any person in respect of any child who is for the time being a child of his family. There does not have to be a blood relationship. The child has, for the time being, become a member of the family. In the case of children in homes and voluntary institutions, the home is the only family that the child has. It takes the child in and gives him a home in the most intimate sense of the word. Of course, most of them have moved a long way from the old days of the large, impersonal institution.
I am well aware that it is a far better solution of the problem of the orphan, illegitimate child or abandoned child that it should be found a home, a foster-parent home or an adoptive home, but that is not always possible. The Blackburn and District Orphanage tried to keep abreast of modern ideas and thought by dividing its institution, which has forty-two children in it, into family units, groups of about eight children with one person acting as the mother. Why should a child of this kind, who is living in a family unit which happens to be in a building with other family units, receive no State support? This illustrates a gap in our legislation which, perhaps, we have not appreciated up to now.
It is for that reason that I have brought the matter to the attention of the House. I should think that there are other hon. Members who were not aware that there are many children who, in the normal way, would receive a payment under our social services but whose welfare and care—because they happen to have been taken into an institution which is not


run by a local authority but is voluntary—is dependent on voluntary subscriptions and public-spirited people holding bazaars, meetings and campaigns and making collections. It is just like the old days when there was no sort of State provision for the situation in which these children find themselves.
Apart from anything else, I should have thought that it would have given the children themselves a greater sense of dignity and status if they had known that a contribution was being made on their behalf as of right to the body looking after them, a contribution by the insurance fund in this case, just as it is made in respect of children in similar circumstances who are looked after privately. It would be a move forward from the old Dickensian approach of little waifs being thrown on the charity of their fellow beings. That is a very important reason for trying to close the gap. It is surely anomalous that any child who has been deprived of a parent or parents and who is cast on the world because of his tragic circumstances should not be covered by our social service legislation.
I hope that the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give very careful consideration to this matter, will recognise that there is a gap of which we were not conscious before and agree that the Bill presents us with a useful opportunity to close it.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am aware that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in her overtures to my right hon. Friend, has hitherto met with almost unique success. However, I must inform her that my right hon. Friend is reluctant, indeed does not wish, to go down this particular garden path with her at the moment. I shall try to give the reasons for that.
We are dealing with guardians' allowance, and the hon. Lady has used family allowances to illustrate her point. But, of course, they are two different things. One is entirely a grant from the Exchequer and the other is part of the National Insurance scheme
7.30 p.m.
Guardian's allowance is a payment of 32s. 6d. a week to a person who takes into his or her family a child whose

parents have died. One of the conditions for payment is, with very rare exceptions, that both parents must have died. There are very rare exceptions. For example, there is the case of the child who is virtually an orphan because it is illegitimate, its mother is dead and its paternity has not been established.
A second exception is where the parents are divorced, one of them being under no liability for and having nothing to do with the child, and the other one being dead. The third exception is where one parent is dead and the other is missing or untraceable. There is a fourth exception under this Bill, namely, where one parent is dead and the other is serving a lengthy sentence of imprisonment.
Apart from those exceptions, the general proposition is that guardian's allowance is payable only where both parents of the child are dead. There are, of course, many cases of children in the care of voluntary organisations which would not begin to qualify for guardian's allowance because the children are not orphans since one or other of their parents is alive or traceable.

Mrs. Castle: I appreciate the terms under which the guardian's allowance is payable, but the hon. Lady will realise that Section 19 of the National Insurance Act covering this point provides that regulations may modify those provisions in cases, for example, of illegitimacy. If we were this evening to decide that the guardian's allowance could be payable to these organisations, presumably we could then, by regulation, decide whether, in a case where a child is illegitimate—there are a number of such children in these homes—greater flexibility could be allowed.

Mrs. Thatcher: The point that I am trying to impress upon the hon. Lady is that, so far, guardian's allowance is payable only for an orphan. I admit that we have made slight erosions into that rule, but the fact remains that it is payable, usually for an orphan, only where the orphan is taken into the family. The allowance is paid so that the family which takes the orphan into its care shall not suffer financial disadvantage thereby. Its purpose is to help the family which takes an orphan into its care.
It is the general purpose of the National Insurance Scheme to provide for payments to individual families or persons who would otherwise be at a financial disadvantage as a result of one or other of the various contingencies for which the scheme provides. It is, therefore, paid to families for specific children. It has never been paid to any general body to meet its liabilities. It is our contention that were this Clause to go through, the central purpose of the scheme would be avoided. The allowance would not be paid for a particular child and go to the benefit of that child. It would, in practice, go into the general funds of the body running the orphanage or into the general funds of the local authority. There would cease to be the essential connection between the payment of the allowance and the benefit of a particular child.

Mrs. Castle: Surely the hon. Lady is a little hair-splitting. If the guradian's allowance is paid to a family which takes the child into its care, it is going into the general funds of the family. One cannot say that that sum, whatever it is, is earmarked and put into a separate money box. It is not. It goes into the general family fund. If the family happens to be a little larger because it is in a home, the principle is not violated in any way. The principle is the same.

Mrs. Thatcher: There is a vast difference in degree between a child in a family living as an ordinary family and a child in an orphanage or in the care of a local authority. We provide by other means for children who need to go into care. It is not as if they are left without Government support. As the hon. Lady knows, since the Children Act, 1948, there has been a clear duty on local authorities to provide for all children in need of care, and that duty is recognised by the Exchequer making grants in one way or another. It is not as if one leaves orphans or other children in need of care without the assistance of Exchequer funds. They are provided for in another way. We use the guardian's allowance, as I have said, where a special benefit is required for a child whom someone else has taken into the family.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is it not the fact that a court order has to be obtained? Why should

it be necessary for a court order to be made so that a local authority institution may qualify for the grant?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am not quite certain about that point. I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. I do not think it is entirely as a result of a court order. I know that in the case of the N.S.P.C.C. it is necessary to take a child before the court as being in need of care and protection, but I am not quite certain whether that applies in the case of a local authority.
At any rate, we do make other provisions for children who are in need of care. It is not a choice between this provision and no provision at all. If this Clause were to be accepted, so far as the local authority is concerned, it would merely mean that it would get 32s. 6d. per child from the National Insurance Scheme instead of getting it through the Exchequer grant.

Mr. Ross: Surely if these institutions did not do this work it would have to be done by the local authorities. The point is, is any payment made to such an organisation, and, if not, why not?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have in the meantime checked on the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman). No court order is necessary for a local authority acting under the Children Act, 1948.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), guardian's allowance is for a family which takes a child into its care. It is not intended to provide any kind of subsidy or grant to voluntary bodies. That is exactly what this Clause would do if it were passed. Where any voluntary organisation boards an orphan out to foster parents, both of the proper parents being dead, and at least one of them having been an insured person, the foster parents can claim guardian's allowance because the general basic conditions of the scheme will have been satisfied.
But it then becomes an allowance payable to a new family in respect of a child whom it has personally taken into its care and of whom it has personally become the guardian. In that sense people get the allowance, but it is not given as a general subsidy to a voluntary


organisation. We believe that would be outside the purpose of the insurance scheme, and this is an insurance benefit.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the implication in what the hon. Lady said that there is no purpose whatsoever in this voluntary work? Is she saying that she thinks the work of these organisations is redundant and unnecessary? If she is not, then they are meeting a need.
The hon. Lady says that this form of words is inappropriate. What form is appropriate for the State to make the same contribution towards the upkeep of a child in the care of an organisation as it is prepared to make if a child goes into a family? When the hon. Lady says it is different in degree, as I pointed out, there are a number of these organisations such as the Blackburn and District Orphanage and Children's Home where the 42 members of the family are broken up into family groups. It might meet the hon. Lady's point if the finances could be organised on that basis.
That they are not physically broken up into a number of different homes is only due to the fact that they cannot get accommodation and cannot get the staff, so that they have to keep them under one roof. The difference in degree is not as great as the hon. Lady said. I would, therefore, ask her whether I have to go back to Blackburn and say that in the view of the Ministry of Pensions, this organisation is unnecessary, because as the hon. Lady said, the Government have provided, in other ways for children of this kind?
Do the Government say, "We provide for them to go into foster homes or into local authority care, and all the rest of it, and if we do not pay you it is because we have provided for them in other ways"? I ask the hon. Lady to say whether she thinks that this organisation might as well be wound up, because she has made other arrangements for looking after the children. If not, in what form does she think these people could most appropriately receive the State help which they would get if the children went into private families?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that the hon. Lady is drawing the right inferences from her feelings. Of course, there is

a place for voluntary children's organisations, and I myself, as no doubt does the hon. Lady, contribute personally to quite a number of them. What I am trying to say here is that the guardian's allowance is not a proper method of subsidising voluntary organisations by the State. There is a query whether there is a proper method through the Home Office, but that is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. The guardian's allowance is not an allowance which should or could be deflected to subsidising voluntary organisations.

Mr. Ross: I can well understand the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—this feeling of frustration. Here we are, on Report, and she is denied the liberty of constant interventions such as we enjoy during a Committee stage.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady has not done too badly.

Mr. Ross: It is not for me to say that. I think that it is a tribute to the persistence of my hon. Friend that she said so much without incurring the displeasure of the Chair. I think that my hon. Friend is on a good point here, though I can appreciate all the difficulties with which the Government are faced in this matter. They are limited by Statute and by the actual definition of "guardian", but when my hon. Friend tells us that, in the case of this very worthy organisation, there is actually an artificial creation of family groups, I wonder whether or not the Minister could not have another look at this point, bearing in mind—and I take it this is the point which the hon. Lady made—that if this same organisation, instead of doing that, had sought out some family and had boarded out a child, that family would have been entitled to the guardian's allowance, provided, of course, that the child came within the original definition; that is to say, that it was an orphan, or, with the few exceptions we have, to which one is being added by the Bill itself. Bearing that aspect in mind, it might well be that something could be considered.
I know that something is done for these charitable organisations. I think that on both sides of the House we find them worthy, and I can think of one in Kilmarnock—Tanker ha'—which is a


children's home run by the Church of Scotland for orphan children. I certainly would not like to see the reservoir of private personal charity drying up to the extent that these people become absolutely indifferent, but let us appreciate that if that help were not given, it would place a greater responsibility on the local authorities, and a greater call on State funds.
We recognise this to a certain extent already. The Rating and Valuation Acts have placed upon local authorities the mandatory power of relieving these charitable organisations of 50 per cent. of their rates, and that loss to the local authorities is partly regained through the equalisation grant. Therefore, we have already had a look at the same kind of problem in regard to charity on a national basis.
7.45 p.m.
While I fully appreciate the difficulties of the Government about the limitations of guardianship and the definition of those entitled to the allowance, I still feel that it may well be that something else could be done. I still think that there is a difficulty in doing it through the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and it may well be that it should be another Department with, probably, more direct responsibility in the social sense. Although I think that my hon. Friend has done a service in raising this point, I must say, quite frankly, that until she told me of it I had not heard of it before. Let me be equally frank and say that I do not think that this is the way in which it could be done.
I hope that those responsible for the social policies of the Government, who, according to the evidence we have had tonight, are reconsidering it, will look at this point, bearing in mind the amount of money saved to the State by such organisations. If the hon. Lady will have another look at the family aspect of this matter, it may well be that she will be able to meet it without even having a new Clause like this. That is a possibility, if this matter is organised on a family basis. Has the hon. Lady thought of that point? It is very difficult, because unless she has personal knowledge of how the home works, it would be difficult for her, and we would not expect her to answer now. But if

she made available to some of us her answer on this aspect of the matter, we would certainly be very pleased.

Mrs. Castle: I was hoping that I might have had some indication from the hon. Lady that she would look at possible ways of dealing with this matter and would communicate with me about it. If she feels that this is not the right way to help, would she consider the point about the direct payment of family allowances to voluntary organisations, which is sometimes now done indirectly? If the hon. Lady, or perhaps her right hon. Friend the Minister, will agree to look at this matter, and see whether there is any way in which it could be done more appropriately, I will not press the new Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not rise, because it did not seem to us, as she had already explained, that this matter has anything to do with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The work of these homes, as each of us as citizens knows, is immensely valuable, and I am rather sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) phrased, even interrogatively, the suggestion that all of us did not have that feeling. I am quite sure that the National Insurance Fund is not the right basis for the support of these homes, and I must tell the House that it does not come within the sphere of my Departmental responsibilities.

Mrs. Castle: Not even family allowances?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The homes do not come within the scope of my Department. They come into the picture only in respect of family allowances and only if their arrangements comply with the law of family allowances.
The basic question, which is what is the best method of helping these bodies, is not a question for me. It would be quite wrong and would mislead the House if my hon. Friend were to say that she would consider or look further at the general issue, because it is for the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn and others concerned to take this matter up, if they wish, with my right hon. Friends who are properly concerned. I must leave the matter there.
As to whether there is any contrivance which would enable this home to be brought within the scope of guardian's allowance, again I must hesitate to express a view, and so must my hon. Friend. These are matters which are settled by the independent statutory authorities set up by Parliament, and whether a particular body meets the conditions is not a matter on which it would be proper for me to comment.
Wide though the scope of my Departmental responsibilities is, it would he misleading the House and not helping the hon. Lady if I or my hon. Friend were to take this one on board. The care of children lies in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There are also the welfare activities of local authorities, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health deals with. In Scotland, it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
If the hon. Lady wishes to pursue this subject either on a constituency basis or generally I suggest that she pursues it with the Minister concerned. This does not arise in the Bill. With the best will in the world, the fact that I was able, as she generously acknowledged, to meet her on a point which did come within my responsibilities—that is, the precise conditions in which a family could obtain guardians' allowance—does not enable me to take this general question of the subsidisation of children's homes very much further.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me raising this point with him, because I have not been in the Chamber long. He and his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary showed a good deal of sympathy with the general approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Is it not possible for him, now that he has heard the general discussion and has shown his sympathy with the general problem, to raise this matter with the other two Departments with a view to seeing whether something can be done to mitigate it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. I do not think that I should serve the House if I sought to assume responsibilities which are not mine. I am quite pre

pared to invite the attention of my right hon. Friends to HANSARD, of which I am sure they are, in any event, very regular readers. I hope that I do not seem to be unhelpful, but it does not really help to enlarge one's own very wide sphere of responsibilities to obtrude in other people's. It does not make for efficient administration. It would not help to solve the point the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn has in mind. Those of us who know the hon. Lady realise that she is more than capable of pressing any point in the right quarter if she so wishes.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The new Clause—(Application of injury benefit to temporary employment outside United Kingdom)—in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and other hon. Members, is out of order, as it would increase the charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. J. Silverman: On a point of order. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why this Clause has been ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can. As I said, it is because it would increase the charge on the Exchequer. As drafted, its effect would be to extend pararaph 1 of Part I of the First Schedule to the 1946 Act so as to make insurable temporary employment outside Great Britain if it stemmed from a contract in Great Britain. The effect of this would be to increase not only the benefits payable as the new Clause specifies, but also the contributions leviable, since the aggregate contribution levied attracts an Exchequer contribution of one-fifth. This would impose a charge, which is not covered by the Money Resolution.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Before this Clause was drafted I took advice from the authorities of the House. I was told that the Money Resolution, which is a fairly wide one, was wide enough to cover it. Apparently, later somebody discovered Section 2 (b) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. The new Clause would not place any further charge on the Exchequer, for this reason. It deals, as was intended, with the person who is in normal employment in this country,


but who is sent by his firm to do a job in another country which is not covered by any reciprocal agreement. The job may last for a week or for two weeks. His insurance payments will continue during this period. He thinks that he is covered against industrial injuries, but if he has an accident he finds, to his dismay, that he is not covered.
The Clause is intended to deal with a person who is already insured, that is, a person who already pays industrial insurance. It does not impose any obligation upon anybody who is not already paying industrial injuries. Therefore, it does not extend to any class which is not already insured. In these circumstances, the new Clause can apply only—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Member for arguing his point, and it may be that he could have limited his new Clause to keep it within order, but as it stands I am persuaded that it could attract an extra charge on the Exchequer and for that reason I must adhere to my Ruling that it is out of order.

Clause 7.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
(1) For the purposes of unemployment benefit and sickness benefit under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1960, there shall be no distinction between the rate of periodical benefit payable to a married woman and that payable to any other person; and accordingly the Third Schedule to the National Insurance Act, 1960 (which sets out rates of periodical benefits and of increases for dependants, substituted for those in Part I of the Second Schedule to the National Insurance Act, 1946), shall be amended in paragraph 1 by the omission in the first column of all the words after the words "Unemployment benefit and sickness benefit" and in the second, third, fourth and fifth columns of all the figures after the figures "57 6 17 6 9 6 35 0", where those figures first occur respectively in those columns.
The Amendment seeks to abolish the present differential between the unemployment and sickness benefits applicable to married women and those applicable to single women. I know that in some circumstances a married woman is entitled to the same level of sickness and unemployment benefit as a single woman and a single man. One

example is where a working wife is supporting a disabled husband. It is only proper in such circumstances that she should get the higher rate of sickness and unemployment benefit. For the ordinary married woman whose husband is working and for whom she has no dependency responsibilities, the sickness and unemployment benefit is 18s. 6d. a week lower than that of a single woman and a single man.
Why do we pay married women lower benefits than single women and single men? The answer goes back exactly thirty years, when a stigma was put on the married women workers of Britain. It has never been removed. It goes back to the Anomalies Regulations of 1931 and is dealt with in the Beveridge Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services. The Report states:
The Anomalies Act of 1931 was introduced to deal with what was undoubtedly a scandal in unemployment insurance: the drawing of unemployment benefit by women who were in no real sense in search of employment. In districts and industries where married women were never accustomed to work and did not expect to find work, the Unemployment Fund, before the Anomalies Act, was tending to become a means of endowing young married life.
I remember 1931. Well over 2 million people were unemployed and had been unemployed for months on end. Many families were destitute. Some couples got married when unemployed, for had they waited until the man got a job they would never have married. The blight which overshadowed the whole industrial and social scene in that year was something we hope never to see again. They were days when the proportion of unemployment among men and women in some areas was as high as 20 per cent.
Those Regulations were introduced in 1931 to economise in what was said to be an economic blizzard—when it was considered necessary to reduce the liabilities on the Unemployment Fund. Whether or not the so-called scandal—referred to in the Beveridge Report—was in truth a scandal or whether it was the only means of self-defence for people for whom Parliament and society could not make better provision, I do not pretend to know. In the immediate circle about which I can speak the scandal did not exist. Married women would have been glad to have jobs, had they


been available, because their husbands were not in employment. That stigma has survived until today and I want to remove it.
On what does it all rest? It rests on the assumption that married women may not be sick but doing the spring cleaning, or that they are unemployed because they are really not looking for a job. Surely the atmosphere and conditions of today are different from thirty years ago. Let us face it, the nation could not carry on today were it not for the married women workers. I do not know why when there is an interruption in the wages of married women workers by unemployment or sickness they should have less compensation for that than any other insured person.
We accept equality between women and men for the purpose of National Insurance benefits. We provide for family responsibility by adding to the benefit of the man who has a dependent wife and children. But otherwise the single man and woman gets the same benefit. We had equal pay in the National Insurance Scheme long before it existed in industry, and, believing that principle to be right, I am now seeking to remove one of the disqualifications of being a married woman.
The Beveridge Report also drew attention to the higher proportion of sickness claims among married women compared with single women. I do not know whether current experience bears that out, but, even if it does, I see no reason for any distinction between the level of earnings. There is no real ground—social or economic—for preserving it. All my life I have sought and worked for equality between men and women, For thirty-five years I gave what energy and influence I had to the campaign for equal pay in the public service, which, I am proud to say, now exists.
We have heard all the arguments against equal pay and discrimination against women in almost every conceivable direction, but in the context of National Insurance we want to get rid of differences which rely on past history and cannot be defended in present day conditions. I had intended to move an Amendment to the Bill of 1960, but pressure of time seemed to squeeze it out of the debate on that occasion and I am

glad to have this opportunity of raising the matter.
I acknowledge that married women under the National Insurance Scheme must be considered, in certain respects, in connection with the benefits given to their husbands, the provision for widowhood, for dependent children and the dependent wife's allowances payable to a dependent wife not insured in her own right but by reason of her husband's insurance and contributions. There is one respect in which the conditions of married women for the purpose of National Insurance differs compared with years ago. Before 1948 a married woman worker was compulsorily insured. Today she has the option of not being insured under the National Insurance Scheme, although she still is compulsorily insured under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I mention this because married women in the National Insurance Scheme, to whom the Amendment relates, are those who have chosen—for what they believe to be good and sufficient reasons—to contribute to the National Insurance Scheme to secure benefits in their own right. They are benefits in their own right about which I am speaking, and none else.
When these married women come to retire they get the same retirement pension as a single woman or man. We are aware that, eventually, equality is restored, but this is related solely to unemployment and sickness benefit. Does the Minister intend to defend retaining this differential? The extent of unemployment claims today is, happily, vastly different from that of thirty years ago, and we are glad that nothing like that level of unemployment has been seen in Britain for the last fifteen or twenty years.
Can the Minister say, therefore, that there is any justification now—in 1961—for regarding an employed married woman as being less entitled to the full unemployment benefit than a single woman or man? Why the difference? Upon what does it rest? Does it rest on the aspersion in paragraph 114 of the Beveridge Report that if the married woman is unemployed she is probably not trying to get a job? Is it considered that her zeal to get employment must be regarded as modified by the fact that she has a husband working or that she


will set out to deceive the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to get unemployment benefit when, in honesty, she is not entitled to it? This is a slur upon the morality of the married woman. It cannot be anything else.
Similarly with sickness benefit. If a married woman is at home sick, is it suggested that she is really not as ill as a single woman or man would be if she or he stayed at home? Is it suggested that she is not really ill but decides that it is time to do the spring cleaning, claims sickness benefit, goes to the doctor and says that she is run down? This raises an important question of principle. I wonder that the married women do not rise up against this.
The truth is that women have to have men to fight for their rights. That is why I am having to do it. I am glad that on this occasion the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary apparently will not rise and down the married women as she downed the widowed mother only a few minutes ago. I always hate to see women having to get up and denounce the claims of other women. They have been downtrodden so long that they cannot afford the luxury of having their own cause defeated by their own sex.
I have said enough. I should like to know the answer. I hope that the House will regard this as a matter of considerable importance in our treatment of women under the National Insurance Scheme.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Sharples): This is the second time that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has moved an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Member made it clear in his opening remarks that the purpose of the Amendment is to abolish the differential in unemployment and sickness benefit between the married and the single woman. In view of the hon. Member's earlier remarks, I will not say anything about the drafting of the Amendment, except in fairness to point out that it goes much further than the purpose which the hon. Member has in mind.
The hon. Member referred to the stigma upon the married woman which dates back to 1931. At the time that the

National Insurance Scheme was introduced in 1946, there could not have been any remnant of a stigma upon the married woman. The reasons for the differentiation at the time sprang from the recommendations of the Beveridge Committee and from the actuarial position which had been incorporated in benefit rates under the old National Health and Unemployment Insurance Schemes.
8.15 p.m.
The first and main reason for the differentiation was fully discussed in Committee during the passage of the 1946 Act. The married woman is in a different position from the single woman or the single man. She has a home provided by her husband. She has a legal right to maintenance from her husband if she should be sick or in other difficulties.
That basic consideration of the difference in status between the married woman and the single woman was made clear by the then Parliamentary Secretary, the former Mr. Lindgren, when the subject was debated on an Amendment moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in 1946. This is what the then Mr. Lindgren said:
… in so far as a married woman is concerned, her need is not so great because, in fact, marriage is a partnership and there is the basis of fundamental provision within the home provided by the husband, or jointly by the husband and wife."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th April, 1946; c. 669.]
I could go on to quote the much stronger words that were used in that connection by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), but as he is not present I will not do so. The basis there was not that of a stigma but the recognition of the fundamental difference in the position of the married woman and of the single woman.
Secondly—and this was referred to by the hon. Member for Sowerby—the married woman at work alone amongst all insured people, has the option not to pay contributions. Two out of three such married women have elected not to pay National Insurance contributions. The hon. Member for Sowerby was quite right when he said that the reason why married women have decided to pay contributions when there is no legal need need for them to do so is because they consider that they will benefit from the Scheme and that it will


pay them to contribute. That is a proper reason for doing so.
The hon. Member referred also to the number of claims submitted by married women. On the sickness benefit side, we have the Report of the Government Actuary covering the five years from 1953–54 to 1957–58, inclusive. The figures are revealing. The employed man claimed an average of two weeks' sickness benefit per year over the whole of that period. The single employed woman claimed sickness benefit for an average of two and a quarter weeks and the employed married woman claimed sickness benefit for an average of three and a half weeks per annum for that period.
In the case of unemployment benefit, the proportion of married women drawing benefit is much higher than that of other contributors to the Scheme. The figures for November, 1960, and May, 1961, the most recent available, show a rate for insured married women 60 per cent. higher than for men. What is even more significant—

Mr. Loughlin: I do not understand the significance of those dates. Why has the Minister chosen November, 1960, and May, 1961?

Mr. Sharples: The explanation is that they are the most recent figures available.

Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Gentleman is quoting figures of that kind for unemployment and sickness and making comparisons from one year to another, all sorts of factors influence the periods when people are sick. The figures for November do not tie up with those for May the following year. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House, but I wondered why he had chosen this method. If he uses these figures for such different periods, is it possible that they might give a wrong picture?

Mr. Sharples: There is no significance in the dates. I have simply taken these figures as being the most recent ones available. One is comparing like with like when contrasting the rate for married women with that for employed men in that the extraneous factors would be exactly the same in each case. I

have not taken these figures with any regard to seasonal factors.
In comparing unemployment benefit claims between married and single women, the rate for married women is two and a half times the rate for single women during the same period.
The additional cost to the National Insurance Fund of the Amendment would be about £7 million and this would have to be met by additional contributions. The Government Actuary has estimated that to meet this cost, an additional contribution of 6d. would be required, divided between employers and all women contributors to the scheme. This would mean that there would have to be an addition of 3d. per week to the contribution for all women, including not only married women, but single women and widows who are in employment. The whole of the additional benefit raised in this way would go to the married woman, who is the only person with the option not to pay the contributions, including the additional contribution, if she does not wish to do so.
The hon. Member for Sowerby rightly referred to the rates of unemployment and sickness benefit which are payable to the married woman who has to support and maintain a husband who is not able to maintain and support himself. In this Bill we have not forgotten the married woman. Clause 7 (1) provides a substantial safeguard for the married woman who is separated from her husband and who gets only a derisory amount in maintenance. I think that that is a very important concession to the married woman and that it will do quite a lot to help a married woman in these particularly difficult circumstances.
For the reasons which I have given, and above all the difference in status—there is no question of stigma—which there is between a married and a single woman, and the additional rights which she has and Which she has enjoyed since the 1946 Act came into force, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw his Amendment; but I must in any case advise the House not to accept it.

Mr. Prentice: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment but I feel compelled to do so with a certain feeling of indignation because of some of


the points made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and particularly because he did something which has been a constant habit of himself and his colleagues through the stages of this Bill—and on other occasions on which we have debated amendments to the National Insurance Scheme—and that is continually to hark back to the days of 1946 and to quote what Labour Ministers at the time said and did in that immediate post-war period. In the very early stages of comprehensive National Insurance they could not go further than they did. I think it a bit feeble that when in 1961, after years of experience, we come forward with amendments to the Scheme Ministers of today cannot do better than to make quotations from that earlier time. We must try to bring our thinking up to date on these matters, and although we do not expect Conservative Ministers to keep up with us, at least they should not be so far behind us as they are on some of these matters.
One of the points which the hon. Gentleman made was that in some way or another married women had smaller needs because they had husbands and because marriage was a partnership and they were given the normal support of their husbands, and all that. That, I think, is a rather dangerous argument, because the benefits laid down in the National Insurance Scheme are not subject to a test of means. The hon. Lady, quite rightly, on a previous Amendment, spoke about the Scheme providing an insurance and the interruption of earnings. All in the Scheme insure against interruption of earnings and, if they suffer interruption of earnings, to get the benefits of the Scheme irrespective of their means—in any other sense: it may be a private income, it may be help by other people. The benefits, however, are not subject to a means test.
It is really impossible to generalise about the means of married women. Their husbands may or may not be in good jobs. They may have very considerable outgoings and responsibilities. Their situations vary, just as do those of men or of single women. It is not fair to make this generalisation as a reason for discriminating against the benefits which married women could get.
If marriage is a partnership it is also a partnership the other way round: a

man may be sick. May be his wife is earning quite good money, but that does not disqualify him from getting sickness benefit. That is not subject to any private means test.
Another point which the hon. Gentleman made was that married women had the privilege of opting out of the Scheme, but surely if a woman decides to opt into the Scheme and pays full contributions she ought in return to be entitled to the benefits on the same scale and of the same nature as other people who pay full contributions. I do not see why she should be penalised in any sense because she has the right to decide whether to come into the Scheme or not. If she has paid the rate she should get the benefits.
8.30 p.m.
The final point I would make is simply that gradually in other ways we are, I think, moving towards the concept of equality between men and women. The concept of equal pay for equal work has, after a very long struggle, been recognised amongst civil servants, teachers and other groups, and it will, we hope, in time spread to industry. I think that if it were in order I would say that we are not satisfied that the Minister of Labour will not meet the point of view of many of us that this country should ratify the I.L.O. convention on the subject. We hope to make some progress on that. The Government are negotiating to enter the European Common Market. The Treaty of Rome lays down certain rules about equality between men and women.
I should have thought that the general climate of opinion was moving towards this concept of equality, and it is very relevant to the Amendment, and I feel that in this matter as in others the Government ought to try to shift with the times and meet the points we are making.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to delay the House to any great extent but I am rather disappointed with the reply we have received from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. If he was absolutely honest on this matter he would have restricted himself to the analysis on an actuarial basis. We appreciate that there is a higher incidence of unemployment and sickness among married women than


among other groups of insured contributors. There are very good reasons for that.
I do not think it is quite as logical to argue that a married woman should not receive the same benefits largely or solely because—and this was the substance of the hon. Gentleman's case—she is entitled to maintenance by her husband. We are moving into a period, as one of the Minister's hon. Friend's said—not somebody on this side of the House—when it is recognised by almost everybody that women, married or otherwise, are entitled to go into industry and to reflect their personalities outside as well as inside the home. I do not know why the Minister looks so surprised about it. He was not here. If we accept this concept of industrial equality and we have an insurance scheme we ought to accept equality of rights under that scheme.
We pay to an insurance scheme not to insure the continuance of the same standard in the event of our having to suffer unemployment or sickness but to maintain a standard, a standard which constitutes at least a minimum comfort standard. There are quite a lot of women who go out to work today because their husbands—and here I am arguing the other side of the medal—are not in receipt of wages which will maintain anything like a comfort standard.
I know that it is quite customary for a lot of people today to talk about average earnings in industry, but I think the Minister will accept that in many trades and industries the husband's rate is a pretty low one. Let me quote just for example the laundry worker's rate. The rate of the Laundry Wages Council, about which some controversy has been raised in this House in the last three weeks, is £7 7s. 10d. The woman who is married to a laundry worker goes out to work and helps to augment the income. Between them they manage to maintain a decent standard. When the wife is sick she is entitled to the comfort standard reduced to the level of the sickness benefit, but in this case there is an additional reduction. There is something which is not equitable about this.
I appreciate the Department's problems in this matter on an actuarial basis

but when we are considering this issue at a time when more and more married women go out to work it should be possible for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at the problem. It creates an injustice, and even though it might require an increase in contribution to meet the problem—and I do not accept that it necessarily does—that is a hurdle which we have had to face in the past and which we shall have to face in the future. If the Minister will have a look at this problem with a view to adjusting this inequity he will do himself as well as other people justice.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House proceeded to a Division; Mr. GORDON CAMPBELL and Mr. MICHAEL HAMILTON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(SET-OFF OF OVER- PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BENEFIT OR FAMILY ALLOWANCES.)

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 16, line 41, to leave out sub-paragraph (3) and to insert:
(3) As regards benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts, 1946 to 1960, provision may be made by regulations under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, for treating benefit paid to any person in pursuance of a decision which is afterwards revised on a review, or reversed or varied on an appeal, as paid on account of any benefit which it is decided is or was payable to him under those Acts in respect of the same accident or disease and, unless either benefit is a gratuity, in respect of the same period.
On the first coming into force of regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph subsections (2) and (5) of section fifty-two of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we also discussed the following Amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mrs. Thatcher: That would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This is a fairly technical series of Amendments which arise out of the following circumstances. They seek to


extend the scope of the Minister's regulation-making powers in relation to adjustments of industrial injuries benefits, following a decision on review or appeal.
The present position is that where, on review or appeal, a different benefit is awarded in respect of an accident, and the two benefits are of a different kind—that is to say, a pension is awarded in lieu of a gratuity, or vice versa—the Minister already has power to make regulations covering the set-off between benefits. But where the benefits awarded are of the same kind, the Minister has no power to make regulations.
The case law on this subject has, therefore, developed along two lines. First, it has developed from the regulations made pursuant to the Minister's power. To take account of the way that has developed, we could, of course, vary the regulations without asking for extra power in the Bill. But the second branch of case law however, does not derive from the regulations but from the Commissioner's decisions. We should have no power to vary the effect of those decisions by regulation without asking for it in the Bill.
The position is that the two sets of case law have resulted in a considerable number of anomalies, and the set-offs have been adjusted in different ways. This matter came particularly to my right hon. Friend's attention by way of a recent decision by a National Insurance Commissioner. In his report—C.I. 55/61—the Commissioner said:
We do think it right, however, to express our considered opinion that the law on this topic is in a most unsatisfactory state. It is not merely doubtful but anomalous. One anomaly is that where the set-off is under Section 52 a claimant is entitled to very substantial advantages under Regulation 28, but these are not available to a claimant where the set-off is otherwise than under Section 52.
At the end of that paragraph, he said:
We venture to suggest that these are matters to which the attention of the legislature could very properly be drawn.
It is in response to those remarks by the Commissioner that my right hon. Friend is bringing forward these Amendments. They will give him power to make regulations for adjusting benefits, whether they are of a different kind or of the same kind, and we hope that this

will enable us to introduce a simplified and consistent code to this field.
It may be helpful if I indicate how my right hon. Friend proposes to exercise his new power of adjustment. It is designedly limited so as to enable adjustment of pensions and allowances to be made on a period for period basis only. To achieve this, a gratuity would be notionally converted into a periodical payment at a rate proportionate to the amount of the gratuity and the length of the period covered by the relevant assessment, taking a life gratuity as seven years.
If I give examples the position may be made a great deal clearer than by the use of a large number of words. For instance, I will show how a case would be dealt with under the present law and how it would be dealt with under the proposed new regulation-making powers. Let us suppose that a medical board assesses a claimant's disablement at 10 per cent for life from 1st January, 1959, and that a gratuity is awarded and paid. On appeal, the medical appeal tribunal varies the assessment to one of 30 per cent. for one year final from 1st January, 1959.
Under the present rules, the insurance officer, when awarding a pension consequent upon the 30 per cent. assessment, will regard the whole of the life gratuity as available for adjustment against the pension. Under the new rule, only one year's worth of the life gratuity will be available for adjustment against the pension.
8.45 p.m.
The second example is where, consequent upon the decision of a medical board, the insurance officer awards a 5 per cent. life gratuity. On appeal, the medical appeal tribunal makes an assessment of 15 per cent. for one year final. Under the present rules, the whole of the 5 per cent. life gratuity would be regarded as available for adjustment against the 15 per cent. for one year gratuity, which means that the man would be paid nothing.
Under the new rules, only one year's worth of the 5 per cent. life gratuity would be regarded as available for adjustment against the 15 per cent. gratuity, with the result that a further payment could be made to the claimant. This type of case has given rise to some


difficulty in the past, particularly where the second award is provisional. It is not easy to explain to a claimant that he cannot have any more money even though his assessment has been increased.
I must make it clear that though the new rules will, in some cases, be more favourable to the claimant, in some cases they will be less favourable. The National Insurance Commissioner's decision which has given rise to these Amendments was far more favourable to the claimant than the law had been up till then. In some cases however, the new law would be much more favourable. I would not like to mislead the House.
This new method should produce a more consistent and simplified code. It will also mean that where we find further anomalies they can be dealt with by further regulations without my right hon. Friend having to come to the House for a specific new power—subject, of course, to any new regulations coming before the House in the ordinary way.
It might be convenient if I refer to a further Amendment—all these Amendments are consequential—and make a small comment on it. That Amendment is the one to paragraph 10 of the Third Schedule. This is a transitional provision to enable the regulations to provide that where a decision relating to adjustment has been made in accordance with rules existing before the date of the coming into force of the new rules, and that decision is the subject of an appeal or review after that date, then the appeal or review is to be determined in accordance with the old law. It is similar to the provision in paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule to cover the change from "good faith" to "due care and diligence.

Mr. Prentice: I should like to make one or two comments on what the hon. Lady has said and to express my doubts and uncertainties about what is concerned here in the hope that these matters may be made a little clearer.
I appreciate that the way in which the law operates at the moment produces anomalies and I see the strength of a need for some review. I understand that at the moment if an appeal resulted in a

gratuity being changed into a pension or a pension being changed into a gratuity, an adjustment can be made, but it cannot be made if what had been a gratuity were still a gratuity or what had been a pension were still a pension.

Mrs. Thatcher: Adjustment is made in either event. Adjustment between unlike benefits is made by virtue of regulations made under Section 52 (2). Adjustment of like benefits is not provided for specifically in the Act, but it is provided for by virtue of the National Insurance Commissioner's case law. There is adjustment in either event, but on different principles.

Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that explanation. I see the case for being able to make the kind of adjustment to which she referred in her speech.
Perhaps I may put my point in this way. There are certain kinds of adjustment to which I would see some objection. I am not sure whether this kind of adjustment will be made in future. If it will not be made, I should be happy, but if it were to be made I should object. Suppose a man has been awarded by a medical board a disability pension of 40 per cent. which is reduced as a result of an appeal by the Ministry to one of 20 per cent. Will it then be the intention that he should have to repay the difference between the 40 per cent. and the 20 per cent. which he has already received? If it is the intention that he should repay it, would not the practical effect be that from the date of the appeal tribunal decision he would receive less than the 20 per cent. until he paid off the extra amount? Is it the intention that that should be done?

Mrs. Thatcher: Not so far as I am aware. I have a specific example with me which I have had carefully worked out. If it is convenient, perhaps I may give it now. Where a pension has been awarded on the basis of a 40 per cent. assessment by a medical board and the medical appeal tribunal subsequently substitutes for the board's assessment one of 20 per cent., the over-payment in respect of the 40 per cent. award will not be recoverable from future payments of the 20 per cent. pension. All that will


happen is that payments of the 40 per cent. pension will be treated as made on account of the arrears of the 20 per cent. award. I think that meets the case made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Prentice: I want to make quite clear that what ought to be avoided is, as it were, penalising a claimant in any way for the fact that he was fortunate enough at the medical board level to receive an assessment which has subsequently been found at the appeal tribunal level to be too high. In the interval he has perhaps enjoyed something to which he was not entitled, but to which he thought he was entitled and he received it in good faith. Because of an industrial accident he has had to spend money. It would be a hardship if he had to pay back the amount he should not have received. If that is not the intention, I am happy.
The other case I have in mind—which, from what the hon. Lady has said, is probably excluded—is that if there is an addition to the disability pension by reason of a special hardship allowance and if that is awarded and then it is found that the claimant is not entitled to special hardship allowance, as the law stands, I understand that from the moment of the Commissioner's decision that allowance will be suspended, but he does not have to repay it unless in some way he has acted in bad faith. I believe that there are regulations about that.
It seems reasonable to recover if the man acted in bad faith, but if he acted in good faith it would be unfair to try to get it back from him because a lower court had decided in favour and then the appeal tribunal decided against it. I hope that that is not the intention.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is proposed that the regulation power for which we are asking should not have the effect of requiring the recovery of an overpayment where a payment was received in good faith. In that respect it would re-enact the existing law in the example given by the hon. Member. May I emphasise that we are asking only for power to make regulations, and that the regulations will be laid in the usual way?

Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that explanation. I think we shall want to see the regulations when they are made, but certain doubts have been cleared up on these points.

Mr. Houghton: This is one of the occasions when the House of Commons ought to have a blackboard. Then we could see these things a little more clearly. The hon. Lady has done her valiant best with her most reassuring manner, but she was candid enough to say that some people might be worse off under this equalisation of treatment scheme while others would be better off.
My hon. Friend has been applying his mind to the document which the Minister allowed us to have—for which I am grateful—in connection with these Amendments so that we could study the matter a little more closely. I find the report of the decision of the National Insurance Commissioner a very long and rather bewildering document. I have never seen anything like it outside documents concerning Income Tax. I did my best with it late last night, but I was unable to report progress and I handed it over to two of my hon. Friends and asked them to be ready to speak intelligently about it at some time during the day. I cannot say any more than that I have tried to master it and that we shall have to leave it until the regulations to be quite sure what the Minister intends to do.
Clearly, however—speaking seriously—the anomalies to which the Commissioner has drawn attention have to be tied up. It was indefensible to go on like that. As in all cases when one is trying to get a unified code, sometimes advantages which have been enjoyed by some people for a time are modified in order to establish some unified code applicable to all concerned. At the risk of being discovered quite wrong and corrected by the Parliamentary Secretary, I wonder whether I can clear my mind on the three points which were mentioned in a summary of this matter which I looked at. At present, where a 40 per cent. assessment for life is replaced on appeal by 20 per cent. for life, the arrears overpaid are not available for set-off against a future pension.
Do I understand that it is proposed that in such a case the arrears overpaid will be available for set-off against the


lower pension during the same period? That is not expressing myself very clearly. Let me put it this way. Will the existing position be continued in regard to this class of change?

Mrs. Thatcher: I understand that the answer is, "Yes". I thought that I gave a specific example to that effect. It reproduces various figures.

Mr. Houghton: Which shows how dull I am.
On the second example, where 10 per cent. for life is replaced on appeal by 30 per cent. for one year, at present the whole of the life gratuity is available for set-off against pension. I understand that now the gratuity will be apportioned over a seven-year period and that one year of that gratuity will be available for set-off against the 30 per cent. grant instead of the whole of it. I understand from the hon. Lady that I am correct in saying that that will be so, and similarly with a third category in which 5 per cent. for life is replaced on appeal by 15 per cent. for one year. At present the whole of the life gratuity is available as set-off against the one-year gratuity, and in future, as I understand it, that will continue as at present, and the whole of the 5 per cent. gratuity will be available for set-off against the 15 per cent. awarded. Am I correct in that? There will not be a double benefit for that period?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am not certain about the actual example, but the general principle up to date in the cases which the hon. Gentleman has given has been to get a set-off of money against money. What we are trying to get now is a setoff of period against period, which is much better.

Mr. Houghton: In those circumstances, we on this side of the House are agreeable to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 22, leave out "it" and insert "that enables or".—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 21, line 13, at end insert:
10. Regulations made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to this Act may, as respects cases where a decision given before the first coming into force of regulations so made is after their coming into force reversed or varied on appeal, or revised on a review, provide for questions arising on the appeal or review to be determined in accordance with the provisions as to benefit overpaid in force immediately before the first coming into force of regulations so made.

In page 23, line 2, after "Act", insert:
(not being regulations described in that Schedule as regulations under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946)".[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Amendments made: In page 27, line 24, column 3, at end insert "(2)".

In page 27, line 25, column 3, after "(4)", insert "(5)".—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Sharpies: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a fairly detailed and somewhat complicated Measure which, I think it is fair to say, has had a full and careful examination both on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee. It may be that we have not been able to accept all the Amendments which the Opposition wished us to accept, but at least the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has the satisfaction of having made legal history by introducing skylarking into the statutes for the first time.
It has been the desire of both sides, consistent with our duty to give careful consideration to a Bill of this scope and complexity, that the Bill should be passed into law with as little delay as possible. We have particularly in mind the provisions in Clause 1 which will give extra help to at least some of the old workmen's compensation cases. It would be churlish not to thank hon. Members on both sides for their cooperation and forbearance when perhaps at times their speeches were cut short. The result is that, provided all goes well in another place, we hope that the Bill


will receive the Royal Assent before the House adjourns for the Christmas Recess.
With that proviso, I can say that it is intended to put the allowances for the totally disabled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts into payment from a date in the third week in January. Allowances for the partially disabled will depend on amending schemes which require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. It will not, therefore, be possible to pay the allowances for the partially disabled until a little time after the payment to the totally disabled has been put into effect. I think that the House will understand why it is not possible for me to be more specific at this stage, but I can give the assurance that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to put these allowances into payment as soon as possible.
With regard to the other main provisions of the Bill, we hope that insurance contributions will start to count towards pension increments under the new provisions in Clause 5 from a date some time in January. The new provisions for family allowances for incapacitated children will come into force immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent. It is planned to bring the family allowance changes for apprentices into effect some time early in April.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the help and advice that we have received from the National Insurance Advisory Committee and from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council over the years. They have given us the benefit of their advice and experience in finding solutions for the complicated problems which we have had to examine. I think that this help and advice is appreciated, not only by those connected with the Ministry, but by all right hon. and hon. Members who interest themselves in these matters.
I commend the Bill to the House and ask hon. Members to give it a Third Reading.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Prentice: It is only just over a month since the House gave the Bill a Second Reading. I think that we on this side deserve the compliment that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary paid us. We did exercise restraint in

Committee and we did curtail many of our speeches and did not say things that we should have liked to have said on various aspects of the Bill—a Bill many of whose aspects we disapprove of—because we wanted to see it passed in order that the supplementary allowances in Clause 1 could be paid at the earliest possible date. However, the fact remains that we are disappointed with many aspects of the Bill. We are disappointed with the inadequacy of some of the reforms that it makes. We particularly disapprove of Clause 8.
Clause 1 provides some modest improvement in the allowances for the old casualties of industry. We on this side have been pressing for this for a considerable number of years. We have taken every possible opportunity to move Amendments to previous Bills to try to get something done for these old cases. Many of my hon. Friends have brought forward Private Members' Bills on the matter. As I say, we welcome this modest improvement, but we think that it should have gone a great deal further.
We are considering people who were injured before 1948. Many of them were injured in industry in the 1920s or even earlier when safety precautions were a great deal less adequate than they are today. Many people were permanently incapacitated and have suffered for the greater part of their lives as a result of industrial accident which should not have happened. The debt that the community owes to these people is great. It is one which we have never properly discharged and which we still shall not properly discharge by this Bill. In so far as the Bill makes a modest improvement in their lot, we are anxious to speed it on its way.
We welcome the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that the new allowances to the totally incapacitated will begin to be paid in January. We promise him that we shall watch the progress concerning the partially incapacitated people very closely. We shall table Questions on the subject if we do not think that that progress is fast enough.
In Committee we spent a lot of time on Clauses 2 and 3, and many of us feel that here again some very modest improvements have been made that ought to have been made a long time ago. Clause 2 extends the scope of the


National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts to some extent, particularly in relation to those who are injured in the course of their employment as a result of what have been called common risks—people who suffer from assaults, from being struck by lightning or, as the Clause puts it, "by any object", and people who suffer as a result of the presence of animals, fish, insects and so on. This seems a rather bizarre collection, but it has a very real meaning for people in industry, and a great many cases have been rejected under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts in the past because of failure to legislate in this way.
I remember some years ago as a trade union officer helping to draft a memorandum on many of these points, and the fact that it has taken from 1948 until 1961 for these requirements to be brought forward is an indication of the very slow and timid approach of the present Government towards any reform in social legislation.
We still feel on this side of the House that Clause 2 does not make all the improvements we want. We feel that transport workers in particular will suffer disabilities compared with other workers in the sense that nothing has been done to extend the scope of employment in the way that we and the trade union movement have been requesting for many years. This again is a matter to which we shall have to return as soon as possible.
Perhaps I may at this point refer to the Industrial Industries legislation. In the course of our discussions in Committee there were occasions when we put down Amendments on which the Minister said that he could not go all the way with us because he felt that the wording which we had chosen was not correct, and it was difficult to devise a form of legislation which would meet some points of substance that we had in mind. Clause 2 makes an improvement and it will fall to be interpreted by the National Insurance Commissioner. Here I think it is worth saying what has been said on another occasion, that a new National Insurance Commissioner has taken on the work recently and we all wish him well. Many of us hope that in interpreting Clause 2 he will find the opportunity to ensure that the scheme is operated as widely as possible.
In a scheme like the Industrial Injuries Scheme a borderline has to be drawn somewhere. This Bill shifts the borderline a little. There will still be disputed cases and fine points of law to be decided. We all hope that what is contained here will lead to a substantial improvement in the operation of the Scheme and that the decisions made in the future will give the widest possible expression to the Scheme.
Having said that we welcome the contents of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and, indeed, some of the later Clauses, though we wish they went further, I am afraid we cannot say the same of Clause 8. This is a Clause which we regard as being entirely bad, at least as far as its main provisions are concerned. We wish that it could be put into a separate piece of legislation so that we could express exactly what we feel about it.
The Minister has failed to meet the main point made by hon. Members on this side of the House and, indeed, made in Committee by at least one hon. Member on his own side. He failed altogether to take account of the practical effect of this proposal so far as it will affect apprenticeships. There are many families in which the decision as to whether or not a boy or girl can undertake an apprenticeship is very marginal indeed. In families where the father is earning a low wage, or where there is a widowed mother, or where there has been a great deal of sickness particularly on the part of the father—in such families which have had a struggle to make ends meet, the decision as to whether or not a boy or girl should undertake an apprenticeship may well depend on whether or not the family allowance is payable in respect of that boy or girl up to the age of 18.
When this House is asked to legislate in such a way as to reduce the number of family allowances being paid in respect of apprentices, it is in fact legislating in such a way as to cut down the total number of apprentices. During the Committee stage, the Minister said that he did not think that in the majority of cases the withdrawal of family allowances would lead to a decision against a boy or girl having an apprenticeship. This may be correct, but we are not concerned with the majority of cases. We are concerned with a minority of


cases, and probably a very substantial minority, in which it will make a difference. We want to urge once more upon the House that the economic position of this country at the moment does not permit us to do anything that would reduce the number of young people undertaking industrial training. It is a matter of the greatest possible urgency that we should have the highest possible quantity and quality of industrial training.
If, as I believe it will, the effect of the Clause will mean that perhaps some hundreds of young people do not undertake apprenticeships, and perhaps some further hundreds who are now in apprenticeship training may withdraw, I think it is quite indefensible in the context of this country's economic problems. It seems to me that the Minister and the Department drafted this Bill without any proper consultation whatever with the other Government Departments concerned with the economic problems involved. Certainly, neither on Second Reading nor during the Committee stage, could the Minister give us any assurances on our doubts on this problem. I urge him at least to give us some reply and to recognise the simple fact that this country lives by its skill, that it is desperately short of skilled workers, and that it will need more of its young people in apprenticeships. No Minister in any context should do anything to reduce the number of young people in training.
I remind him, as we have reminded him before, that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has toured the country asking industrialists to take on more apprentices. I remind him that, only a few months ago, we celebrated Commonwealth Technical Training Week, in which a great deal was said on this subject. I ask the Minister to recognise that today he is doing something, perhaps, in regard to only a few cases, but nevertheless, something that will damage the structure of industrial training in this country, and it is wrong for any Minister to do anything on those lines.
On other occasions, we have put the case in this House that the Government are not doing enough to encourage and expand industrial training. Be that as it may, it is wrong for the Minister or anyone to do anything which will make

the situation worse. This Clause is a bad Clause. We think that the rest of the Bill is unsatisfactory, because it does not go as far as we should like it to go, although it contains some modest improvements for which many of us have pressed for many years. Therefore, we shall feel bound to support the Third Reading tonight, although with a great sense of disappointment at the inadequacies of the Bill generally, and particular disappointment about Clause 8.

9.18 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Before the House passes this Bill, I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in saying a few words about apprenticeships. Quite apart from the social inequity which we must recognise, I agree with my hon. Friend that there has surely never been a more inappropriate moment at which to discourage apprenticeship schemes than this moment, and yet this, in fact, is what the House is being asked to do in giving the Bill a Third Reading.
To cut off family allowances from apprentices at this moment, of all moments, seems to me to be a most shortsighted policy. No one can say that this is an encouragement. It certainly is not an inducement to young men and women to enter apprenticeships, because, as my hon. Friend has said, the decision whether they go in for apprenticeship schemes is in a great many cases a very marginal decision indeed, and this will just tip the scale.
We are told that there will be a saving to the Exchequer. But the loss to the country in terms of skill and technical training will be incalculable. This will occur at a time when the Russians and the Americans are doubling, trebling and even quadrupling educational facilities of all kinds to train and equip their young people. Everyone must deplore this part of the Bill.
In spite of the short-comings, omissions and blind spots to which my hon. Friends have referred, I welcome the part of the Bill which refers to what the Parliamentary Secretary calls the "old cases". Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I represent a mining area in which there is a tragic incidence of


pneumoconiosis. I welcome the increases under the Bill, particularly the increase for the totally disabled under the old Workmen's Compensation scheme before 1948, although I regret that their rates are still lagging painfully behind.
We on this side also welcome the increased compensation for the partially disabled. It is not much. It falls very far short of what we on this side would like to see. However, we acknowledge that it is an advance. It is a small mercy, but I suppose that we must describe it as a mercy. We also welcome the increase of 7s. 6d. in benefit for those suffering from pneumoconiosis who had left the industry and did not qualify for compensation.
These were all anomalies, and we are very glad that they have been put right. Although these changes are small in scope, I hope that they will be the precursors of wider, further and much needed legislation to deal with the injustices and inequalities which still exist.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: I want to comment briefly on some of the provisions contained in the Bill. I welcome some of the modest improvements, but I am extremely disappointed that the Bill has not gone far enough. It has not brought about something which is crying out for achievement, namely, parity between certain types of benefit. The Bill, like the proverbial curate's egg, can be described as being good in parts. Unfortunately, there are disadvantages in other parts.
I am particularly concerned with Clauses 1 and 8. Clause 1 is very disappointing because, in spite of the increases to those in receipt of workmen's compensation as totally disabled, it would seem that they will still be approximately 15s. worse off than similarly injured persons who come within the provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. This is really most regrettable. This would have been a splendid opportunity for the Minister to display his generous approach by bringing about parity of treatment.
There are a number of disabled miners and many disabled steel workers in my

constituency. There is also a concentration of heavy industry there, and, frankly, it is almost impossible to persuade the recipients of workmen's compensation that the Minister's suggestions are reasonable and sound, for they see that, at the end of the day, they are worse off than others similarly disabled. It is difficult, therefore, to persuade these ex-miners and ex-steelworkers that there is any justice in Clause 1.
The Minister should recognise that these men have given their life blood to the basic industries on which our economy depends. The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate the service and self-sacrifice which they have made, and the least that he could have done would have been to take advantage of this opportunity to establish parity. We are not asking for anything new. I understand that parity existed for a period of eighteen months to two years. It should have appeared to him that in the Bill a glorious opportunity now existed to restore it.
After all, the recipients of workmen's compensation must pay the same prices in the shops for the goods and foodstuffs which they purchase. There are no special prices for ex-miners or ex-steelworkers who are living on compensation. They pay the same as anyone else and the right hon. Gentleman should have some regard to their circumstances and offer them the same financial benefit as other totally disabled workers receive.
The subject of apprentices has already come in for a good deal of discussion. In the Bill there is a departure from all the principles I have heard enunciated, not only by the right hon. Gentleman but by previous Government spokesmen of both parties. This evening we have been treated to the usual dissertation—"This is what Labour Ministers said ten or twelve years ago", or "This is what a Labour Government did on that occasion". Then we were told what my hon. Friends said and did from 1945 to 1951.
We have heard all that before when dealing with problems of National Insurance, but surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that he has made certain statements over the years. I recall his words a few years ago when he said


that he recognised the importance of family allowances. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to apprentice incomes, used the phrase, "not in receipt of earnings which provide him, wholly or substantially, with a livelihood". That statement was the yardstick used to determine the element that could be incorporated in the income of a family for family allowances purposes with regard to apprentices.
We find that there has now been a complete departure by the right hon. Gentleman from that stand which he took just a few years ago. We discover that he has actually jettisoned the principles which he enunciated at that time and has introduced the provision in Clause 4 whereby 40s. will be the probable maximum for incorporation in incomes for family allowances purposes.
In essence, it means that whereas in 1956 the right hon. Gentleman argued that he was becoming generous—was extending the scope of family allowances to incorporate an additional 30,000 apprentices—we discover now that he is going to exclude 50,000 apprentices under the present Bill. Five years ago he brought 30,000 apprentices into the fold and now he proposes to exclude 50,000. The departure from that yardstick and those principles intrigues me. It is well known that on many aspects of National Insurance administration attempts have been made from time to time to declare just what is a reasonable income on which an apprentice might be regarded as being able wholly to maintain himself or herself.
It is equally true that it is difficult to arrive at an exact formula. We have seen several formulae in the past few years. In 1956, many of the referees agreed that up to 55s. of an apprenticeship income should be included in the family income for family allowance purposes. In 1959, the figure suggested—not by the politicians, but again by those independent authorities—was 67s. 6d. There is no need for me to mention the case which gained widespread publicity throughout the United Kingdom, upon which the judgment was based. That occurred only in 1959. Now, in 1961, it is proposed that the figure should be reduced to 40s. After a period of two years, when the value of the £ has fallen and the cost of living has risen, instead

of increasing the figure of 67s. 6d., it is being reduced to 40s.
What the Minister will succeed in doing, whether he likes it or not, is to encourage indifferent parents to dissuade young members of the family from entering apprenticeships because of family allowance restrictions of this nature so that they might earn better money in general employment.
I am the first to admit that the parent who is ready to sacrifice and keen to encourage his or her children to enter apprenticeships will continue to do so in spite of the Government's restriction. The Minister can, however, be assured that the indifferent parent will take an entirely different view and that the stream of potential apprentices will be diverted away from industry. Only in the last few weeks we have heard laments, especially from the Government side of the House, about the shortage of craftsmen in industry and in the building trade. It was one of the arguments adduced in the Scottish debate to explain why we are spending £1 million less on housing in Scotland next year. Only last week, in reply to a Question by me, the Parliamentary Secretary admitted that there was a serious shortage of engineering apprentices in industrial design, so much so that certain machines cannot be designed for factories by United Kingdom manufacturers.
This serious problem which confronts the nation will never be overcome by Measures of this type. The Minister is not saving money, because the finest type of capital in which the country can invest is, not finance capital or industrial capital, but human capital. Unless we recruit the men and women of the next generation in sufficient numbers to our crafts and industries, to our semi-professional and, indeed, professional bodies, the civilisation of tomorrow is bound to suffer.
The Minister has taken a short-sighted view of the problem. For the sake of the infinitesimal sum involved, it would have been in his interests and in the interests of the House and of the country not to interfere with the system of allowing apprenticeship incomes to be included in the family income for family allowance purposes. By so doing, we would have stimulated the desire and the interest of


these young people to fit themselves for apprenticeships in all walks of life and all sections of indstury, for the good both of the industry, of themselves and of the nation.
Therefore, while welcoming the Bill and indicating that it will have my support, I very much regret that the Minister has been short-sighted in these respects. I hope that in the light of experience, he will come to realise that it will not pay dividends to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to treat apprenticeship earnings in this fashion and that as a result of trial and error he will learn from his mistakes and we can look forward in the near future to adjustments on the lines suggested by hon. Members on this side of the House.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: Most of what I wished to say has already been said. Therefore, I will not keep the House very long. I cannot feel as enthusiastic about the Bill as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. The Bill provided me with my first experience as a member of a Standing Committee. I have a feeling that it went through altogether too quickly. It might have taken a little longer had it been before the Scottish Standing Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said that, like the curate's egg, there were good and bad parts of the Bill. I am reminded of the butcher—or was it the baker?—who was accused of making his rabbit pies with horse meat. He strongly denied it and declared that his pies were half and half—one horse to one rabbit. The "horse" of the Bill is Clause 8, in which the Minister is doing the wrong thing. Whatever may have been this reason for undoing what he did before, the effect will not be for the general good of the country.
I agree with my hon. Friend that in a large number of families the decision whether a young man becomes an apprentice or goes into a dead-end job is a marginal affair. The new description of apprentices as persons
not in receipt of earnings exceeding forty shillings a week
will, from my investigations, exclude almost all the apprentices. At least, I

have not been able to find any apprentices who will not be excluded, and I would suggest that the numbers excluded will be many more than the numbers given by the right hon. Gentleman.
The effect of Clause 8 must be to make it much more difficult for families to apprentice their boys. I was reading the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the other day, and they were saying that the average expenditure on food for an adolescent was 34s. a week. If we take that as being true there will be very little left to pay all the other expenses which apprenticeship costs a family.
The real trouble though, about Clause 8, is that we do not really know what it means. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading when he said that this would be conditioned by certain allowable expenses, and I read the speeches made in Committee, but I am still not clear as to what exactly is intended by the Clause. We should be given a clear definition tonight.
Would the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what is meant by
earnings being for this purpose calculated or estimated in such manner and on such basis as may be prescribed"?
I think that that would be useful. I think that we should get it on the record, because we may be faced with many difficult cases of interpretation. I can see that trade union organisers will be very busy fighting cases over this interpretation in the future.
I am sorry that I cannot give the Bill a welcome. I have spent years dealing with the problems of skilled men and apprentices in industry, and it is my belief that the Bill will injure the country rather than help because of the inclusion of Clause 8. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thought it was necessary to do this at this time.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I am sure the House is very grateful to the Leader of the House for having rearranged the business for today to give us more time to consider the final stages of the Bill. It is true that, in Committee, we adhered to a self-imposed timetable in order to get the Bill back to the House in reasonable time for it to pass through all


stages and receive the Royal Assent before the Christmas Recess, and we are about to pass the Bill to another place in accordance with that intention.
We are grateful to the Minister for having secured a place in a crowded legislative programme for a Bill containing a number of improvements which have long awaited attention in this House. I am not at all sure that he would have found it so easy to get this favourable place in the legislative timetable in this Session if he had not included Clause 8. I think that must have warmed the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and facilities were given to the Bill to come on early, because of the savings which Clause 8 will secure.
This is a miscellaneous Bill. There is no one theme running throughout, and we have to take each Clause and part of the Bill more or less by itself and consider it in the light of our experience and knowledge of respects in which reform is called for. The Minister has had detailed consultations with the Trades Union Congress and it has assisted him in bringing forward a number of these proposals. I am sure that has been for the general assistance and convenience of the House.
I suppose my hon. Friends and I could claim to have had some part in Clause 5 dealing with the younger widows. We seem to have given the National Insurance Advisory Committee a very complicated and baffling task. It was a long time producing its Report. I did make inquiries as to how it was getting on and was told that it was a very difficult job which had been assigned to it. Naturally, we are disappointed that the Report of the Committee did not clear the way to the removal of this sense of unfairness about wives under 60, whose husbands are older than they are and who defer retirement, but in respect of whose deferment the wife under 60 enjoys none of the increments in her pension which the husband earns to his pension in the period of deferred retirement during which she was under 60.
A small concession is given to the widow in these circumstances and the widow under 60 is now to receive one-half of her husband's increments for the period during which she was under 60 and he was deferring retirement. Perhaps this is the best that can be done

with this difficult problem, though in Committee we thought that there was still an improvement which could be made without giving rise to all the consequential difficulties which the National Insurance Advisory Committee feared. However, there it is, and Clause 5 gives something to these widows under 60 for the whole of the time when their late husbands deferred retirement.
The benefits to the old cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts are naturally welcome, but, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, we had hoped that it would have been possible for the Minister to make more adequate provision for these long-standing casualties of industrial accident and disease.
Clause 8 is undoubtedly the blot on the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, the thin layer of jam spread over a rather wide area concealed this somewhat bitter pill in Clause 8. When the significance and the effect of the Clause become appreciated more widely, hon. Members on both sides of the House will hear an outcry from many of the parents concerned. Frequently, when these matters are being dealt with in Committee upstairs they do not receive the publicity which would flow from discussing them on the Floor of the House. It may not be known yet in many households that the family allowance which they are now drawing will be terminated when the new regulations are made with effect from the beginning of April.
Whether family allowances are, in any case, the best way of dealing with apprenticeship is perhaps a matter for debate. The whole field of extended education, apprenticeship and training for vocations and professions needs re-examination with a view to offering greater encouragement and inducements for our young people to embark on careers of skill. But since Her Majesty's Government have not yet tackled the matter in a comprehensive and radical way we have to rely on the family allowance scheme to offer an additional encouragement to many parents to consent to their boys and girls becoming apprentices.
I hope, however, that the parents of apprentices and the apprentices themselves who are adversely effected by


Clause 8 will not allow that to interfere with apprenticeship or with the parents' plans for the apprenticeship of others of their children. The interest of the young people themselves and of the country must triumph over this discouragement in Clause 8. Sometimes it takes a great deal to rise above the annoyance and sense of injustice that these changes bring about, but I am sure that those parents who allow it to make no difference will be glad of it in the days to come and that, especially, the young people themselves will be glad of it.
It is sad, that in this respect, the Minister is now changing the basis of the Family Allowances Act, 1945. How much should an apprentice earn and still enable his parents to qualify for family allowance? The various decisions of the Commissioners have raised the amount from time to time, until the more recent reward, when a Commissioner decided that a young person aged 16 could be earning £4 4s. 6d. as an apprentice and still not be in conflict with the conditions of the 1945 Act, seems to have goaded the Minister into taking drastic action. He is now reducing the qualifying earnings of an apprentice for the purpose of the family allowance below the level which has been in existence for some time. That is regrettable.
The right hon. Gentleman has not merely put right, in his view, the highest and most recent award. He has gone back over past awards and has fixed a level of 40s. a week, which is much lower than the figure which the National Insurance Commissioners recommended and which has been in operation for some years.
Other parts of the Bill have been referred to by my hon. Friends in varying degrees of contentment or dissatisfaction. There is no doubt that Clause 1 will remove a great deal of difficulty over accidents arising in the course of employment. Whether the introduction of this normal word "skylarking" in the Bill will make very much difference, I am not sure. If "skylarking" it is, then there will be no difficulty about its being covered by Clause 2, because the word is there and everyone knows what it means. I suppose that our legal friends may say that there is a difference between misconduct and "skylarking". If there

is, the Bill takes care of any doubt in that respect.
On the whole we must assent to the Bill being given its Third Reading. We regret that it is not more adequate in its beneficial Clauses, and we deplore the Minister's action in Clause 8. We sincerely hope that the result which many of us fear will not come about as a result of the worsening of conditions under the 1945 Act. We hope that the Minister, on another occasion, will get just as favourable a position for a Bill which will be more satisfactory to us and more agreeable to the House as a whole. We could have overlooked many of the Bill's defects had it contained the thing we most passionately desire—a general improvement in the whole range of National Insurance benefits.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I had the privilege of saying the first few words on the Bill in this House a few weeks ago, and I should like, at much shorter length than on that occasion, to say what I have no doubt will be the last words about the Bill in this House.
As did my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I would like to thank the House for the way in which it has dealt with the Bill. I do not mean—and I do not think that anyone will misunderstand me in this—that either side has shirked its duty to give a Bill of this character proper consideration and discussion. On the other hand, it has been a very good example of the parliamentary process at its best in dealing with a complicated Bill.
There certainly have not been speeches for speeches' sake. On the contrary, there has been genuine good will between the two sides, although opinions on the matters at issue have differed a great deal. The good will has been there in getting on with the job of giving the Bill the discussion it needed, but not prolonging debate for its own sake. I thank the House. I would also thank the many people outside the House who have helped us in bringing about this complicated Measure—the National Insurance Advisory Committee, the T.U.C. and, nearer home, the people in my own Department, and the parliamentary draftsmen.
The Bill contains a mass of detailed provisions some of which there is not


time to mention now. Many of them are items of improvement in the scheme which I have wanted to make for some time but which have had to await the opportunity for legislation. I am very grateful that, with the co-operation of the House, it has been possible to deal with those matters in the Bill.
Naturally enough, the main discussion in this short debate has turned on Clauses 1 and 8. I realise, and the House appreciates, that Clause 8 is a very good illustration of the problem, which we meet when we try to alter the pattern of a particular social service, of redeploying resources in new circumstances and in new directions. It is a thing that we are always rightly urged to do, but it is also something which, when we do do it, naturally raises comment and criticism from those who are, or think they might he adversely affected by the change.
We should certainly not have brought Clause 8 forward if we had thought that it would have an adverse effect on the willingness of young people to take up apprenticeships or of employers to provide opportunities for them so to do. I agree with what the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and other hon. Members have said about the crucial importance to this country of our people training themselves, with every opportunity they have, in the skills and techniques of modern industry. But in bringing the Bill forward I came to the view, to which I still adhere, that this provision will not have such an adverse effect, and I ask the House to look at it in proportion.
I do not believe that, when we are dealing with the only people who will be affected by this—apprentices bringing into the home at least 40s. a week net—the question of whether family allowances at the present rate will or will not be issuable will be the decisive factor. I feel that when one remembers the purpose of family allowances—to provide for truly dependent children—it was right to make this change and to redeploy our resources in this way.
In reply to the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who is not, I think, in his place, there is no inconsistency between this and improvements made in 1956. Those improvements involved increasing the age at which a person otherwise entitled either as a schoolboy or schoolgirl, or as an apprentice, would be eligible to qualify his family for family allowance. Of course that remains absolutely unaffected by this Bill. In my view, this restores the family allowance scheme to its true purpose of providing some additional payment to those families whose children continue to be dependent upon them because they are undergoing either education or skilled training.
In reply to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson), the words at the end of the Clause to which he referred indicate that we shall prescribe in regulations the conditions as to what shall be treated as earnings for this purpose. Those regulations will be laid before the House and will be subject to the Prayer procedure.
At this stage I say only this about this Bill. I am very glad to have had the opportunity of bringing it forward. It provides a considerable number of things which improve our social services. And I am particularly glad to be able to do it at a time when, for obvious reasons of finance and national economy, the making of improvements is not easy. That they are improvements I am sure, and I believe they will do some good.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN)

National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1961,[draft laid before the House 28th November], approved.—[Mr, Boyd-Carpenter.]

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (BORROWING POWERS)

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that with your approval and that of the House, we may consider this Order, which relates to England and Wales, with the Order which relates to the South of Scotland Electricity Board.
The Electricity Borrowing Powers Act, 1959, gave to the Electricity Council and boards in England and Wales and to the South of Scotland Electricity Board power to borrow up to the limits, respectively, of £2,300 million in the case of the English and Welsh boards, and £135 millions in the case of the South of Scotland Electricity Board. It also laid down intermediate limits of £1,800 million and £110 million respectively, which are the limits at present in force, and provided for those limits to be raised by means of the kind of Orders which we are discussing.
The purpose of these Orders is to raise those limits to the final figures which were contained in the 1959 Act. I must remind the House that it was always thought that the intermediate borrowing limits would be sufficient until the present time, 1961–62. Therefore, the making of these Orders fits in perfectly satisfactorily with the forecast which was made three years ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, in an attempt to help hon. Members who would like to compare the performance of the industries since 1958 with the estimates which were made in 1958 and in order to try to give the best estimate possible of the years immediately ahead have issued a White Paper, which no doubt hon. Members will have read, which contains figures that are strictly comparable to those in the earlier White Paper issued in connection with the 1959 borrowing Bill.
I draw hon. Members' attention to paragraph 6 of the White Paper where they will see that in the case of the

Electricity Council and boards in England and Wales the total capital requirements in the last three years have been rather less than was estimated, £844 million instead of £850 million. In the South of Scotland Electricity Board the probable out-turn to 31st December this year is about £1 million below the estimate. Going back to the Electricity Council and boards, hon. Members will see that rather more than was expected in 1958 has been met from internal resources, £360 million against the expected £355 million. Therefore, in the case of those boards the borrowing required is rather less, about £11 million less than was expected. In the case of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, because the self-financing has itself been a little less than was expected, the borrowing required is exactly as estimated three years ago.
I have made it clear that the financial out-turn so far in the last three years is consistent with the expectations in 1958, but the plans for the remaining years of the period have changed owing to the demand for electricity now growing at a faster rate than was foreseen three years ago. In order to meet the continuing high rate of increase in the demand for electricity, the industries, both in England and Wales and in Scotland, have had to accelerate their plant-commissioning programmes and have had to increase their planned level of investment on main transmission and distribution. Both the industries would have liked to bring the additional generating capacity into commission earlier, but, for reasons which are obvious to hon. Members, this is not physically possible, and, despite this increase in their programmes, the margin of spare capacity in the later 1960s will be rather less than 2½ per cent. in average cold winter conditions and, the margin will be even smaller in the intervening years.
The recent growth in demand and the technical advances of the last few years have made necessary a re-examination of the methods of providing the additional generating capacity which will be necessary during this decade. In the White Paper which I issued in 1960 on the nuclear power programme, I explained the reasons for the revision of the


nuclear programme which then took place, as a result of which it is now planned to provide by 1968 about 5,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity, which will probably reduce the industry's capital needs up to 1966 by £90 million.
In conventional electricity generation, there has been great technical progress, too, and the cost per kilowatt installed has been considerably reduced. In 1958 it was £53 per kilowatt, and it is now down to £40; in the later 1960's it may well be down to £35 per kilowatt, or possibly even lower. In addition to the lowering of capital cost there has been, through increased thermal efficiency, a decrease in running costs, too.
The increased demand has not only led to the necessity for increased generating capacity but also to the need for increased capacity on main transmission. The Central Electricity Generating Board is planning to introduce a 400 kilovolt main transmission network, and at the same time the increased demand is also affecting the area boards' distribution system and is adding still further to the investment needed in the areas for distribution.
Clearly, the greater the demand the more important it is that the plant should be used as fully as possible. I am quite satisfied that both the industries recognise the prime importance of a high load factor. The Central Electricity Generating Board recently announced changes in the bulk supply tariff which will encourage off-peak sales, and the area boards, too, are offering off-peak tariffs to their customers.
The financial implications of these changes, which are the changes looking ahead to the next two years, are summarised in paragraph 9 of the White Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have published. It will be seen from paragraph 9 that the total capital requirements over the whole period in the case of the Electricity Council and boards have gone up, for the reasons which I have mentioned, by £210 million. Of that £210 million extra capital investment, the Council and the boards will find from their own resources rather more than half—in fact, the difference between £980 and £1,100 million, which is £120

million extra, leaving the net extra borrowing, to be met in the way that we are providing, of £90 million. Similar figures for Scotland are shown in the lower half of the table, and they are £27 million total extra capital requirement, financed through internal resources to the extent of £11 million and extra borrowing required to the extent of £16 million.
The rate at which the programmes will proceed and the amount of borrowings which will be necessary from year to year will be subject to Government approval and will be reported to Parliament in the White Papers which are published biennially—in April the White Paper on Government Expenditure Below the Line and in October the White Paper on Public Investment in Great Britain. Parliament will also be told, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in the debate on last year's Finance Bill, of any major changes in the forecast figures.
For example, the borrowing in 1960–61 in respect of both the industries was £17 million lower than was forecast in the White Paper issued in April, 1960; on the other hand, the industries' borrowing in the present year, 1961–62, seems likely to be over £30 million higher than was forecast in the White Paper issued last April. While there are certain to be fluctuations of this kind from year to year, over the whole period covered by the Orders the industries' self-financing ratio is expected to be rather higher than was forecast in 1958.
This brings me to the question of the financial targets which are to be set the industries under paragraph 20 of the White Paper, which was also issued in April, 1961, entitled, "The Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries." This White Paper stated the Government's intention to agree, after consulting each autonomous board, a framework of financial performance over the next five years, and since the issue of that White Paper my right hon. and learned Friend and I have been undertaking consultations with the industries concerned. My own consultations with all the thirteen boards in England and Wales are not yet complete, but I should like to give the


House a general indication of the industries' projected level of performance.
The Government expect from the industry as a whole in England and Wales total surpluses of about £325 million over the five year period between 1962–63 and 1966–67. That is an average surplus for the whole industry of £65 million a year. About half of this is expected to come from the Central Electricity Generating Board and the remaining half from the area boards collectively. On present estimates of capital requirements, this level of performance represents a gross yield on average net assets employed of about 12½ per cent. and a net yield after depreciation of nearly 7 per cent.
A performance at this new level implies a self-financing ratio rising from about 50 per cent. at the beginning of the five-year period to nearly 60 per cent. at the end of it. All these figures apply to the industry as a whole in England and Wales. Figures for each board individually will be published when consultations are complete.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Self-financing is obviously the nub of the astronomical figures that we are discussing. Are my right hon. Friend's figures for future self-financing up to 1967, rising from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.—I repeat what my right hon. Friend has just said—calculated on precisely the same basis as the self-financing figures shown on page 7 of the Electricity Council's publication "Finance for Power", which, in retrospect, have been 44·8 per cent. estimated and 45·6 per cent, actual? If so, will my right hon. Friend explain how it is that the electricity industry is proposing to find an increase of as much as one-third in its self-financing facilities?

Mr. Wood: I think that the basis which my hon. Friend has quoted is slightly different, in that the provision for debt redemption is included in one and not in the other. If I may help him, the figures that I have just given are matched in paragraph 6 of the White Paper—

Mr. Nabarro: Which White Paper is that?

Mr. Wood: I appreciate my hon. Friend's uncertainty, because there are a

number of White Papers. The White Paper to which I refer is that issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself headed "Memorandum on the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1961—

Mr. Nabarro: Cmnd. 1564.

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend is right. The figures to which I wish to draw his attention are in the second line of the first part of the table in paragraph 6 under the heading "Electricity Council and Boards". Has my hon. Friend got that?

Mr. Nabarro: I am with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wood: The figures in the table are £355 million and £360 million. The percentages in respect of self-financing are 42 and 43 respectively. I hope that I have made the position clear to my hon. Friend. That is the comparison with which the figures of 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. correspond.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. If we are to make progress and to understand this mass of publications, it is important that all the statistics should be rendered on a strictly comparable basis. Of course, I am with my right hon. Friend in his publication Cmnd. 1564. I followed what he said about that precisely. But the figures for self-financing which he has quoted do not agree with the figures for self-financing as percentages in the Electricity Council's publication "Finance for Power". I want the two sets of figures reconciled.

Mr. Wood: I have done my best to reconcile them for my hon. Friend. I have explained the reason for the discrepancy between the two figures, and I have tried to give the comparative figures for the years 1958 to 1961 which correspond to the figures that I have given for the five-year period from 1962 to 1967, which are 42 per cent. in respect of the £355 million estimated for self-financing in 1958 and the actual out-turn of £360 million, which is 43 per cent., in 1961. If my hon. Friend is not clear about the matter, perhaps he will raise his doubts later and we can try to clear them up before the end of the debate.
In addition to the consultations which I have been undertaking in respect of the Electricity Council and the boards in England and Wales, similar consultations have been undertaken by my right hon. Friend with the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I should like to emphasise as strongly as I can that the surpluses which I have mentioned amounting to £325 million are not over and above the needs of the industry. They are contributions from revenue to the capital development of the industry which must be ploughed back year by year to reduce borrowing and the burden of interest.
I should like to quote from the other White Paper for the benefit of my hon. Friend, Cmnd. 1337:
… there are powerful grounds in the national interest"—

Mr. Nabarro: this?

Mr. Wood: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It is the fifth line in paragraph 22:
… there are powerful grounds in the national interest for requiring these undertakings to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of their capital development out of their own earnings, and so to reduce their claims upon the nation's savings and the burden on the Exchequer.
It is clear from paragraph 9 of the other White Paper, Cmnd. 1564, that the maximum limits which were laid down in the Act of 1959 will be reached rather sooner than was thought at that time. It will probably be necessary to ask Parliament for fresh borrowing powers in respect of England and Wales during the Session 1963–64.
In the South of Scotland the maximum limit will probably be reached about a year earlier. The estimates which were made three years ago proved substantially correct and the intermediate limit has been reached almost exactly when it was expected. The estimates made in 1958 of the Board's borrowing needs between now and 1965 will be exceeded, in spite of greater self-financing, because, as I have explained, the industry has had to expand more rapidly than was expected in 1958.
I think the House will agree that the industries deserve congratulation for the increasing proportion of necessary capital which they are finding and intending to find from their own resources.

I hope the House will now agree to provide them with sufficient borrowing powers to enable them to continue to meet the ever-growing demands for electric power, not only by industry and commerce, but also for domestic use.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: This is a success story. It is a success story which could not possibly have been achieved under private enterprise but has been achieved by this nationalised industry. If that requires any support, I should like to point out one or two things that private enterprise could not conceivably have done. The principal one is the length of the programme which is required in modern conditions for expenditure on capital assets in this industry. The 1959 Act and the last White Paper provide for a seven-year period.
Before I say any more about that, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. He referred to the White Paper on the "Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries" and he referred to the part of it which has troubled me slightly. I am looking at page 8, paragraph 24, and this appears to refer to the electricity industry as well as to other industries. It contemplates not a seven-year programme but in this case, so far as I can see, a programme for the next five years ahead, followed by an upper limit on the amounts to be spent on investment during the two years ahead, followed again by an annual reasoned estimate submitted to the Government by the undertaking. In this case I suppose we may call it the Electricity Council or the electricity industry.
Those seem to me to be limits which were put into this White Paper as recently as April, 1961, long after a seven-year programme had been found necessary and had, indeed, been adopted. I suggest that the whole tenor of the White Paper, of the 1959 Act and the arrangements made under it, and, indeed, of what we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman points to a seven-year period. I see every reason for it. I am referring to the Report and Accounts of the Electricity Council, the first chapter of which is in the reprinted version that has been going round lately.
It does not matter very much which reference one makes, so long as it is clear which document it is, and the document I have here is the Report and Accounts of the Electricity Council for the year ended 31st March last. I see that here a firm programme of transmission requirements has already been settled for primary transmission in 1965 and for secondary transmission in 1964, and that provisional programmes have been settled for 1966 and 1965, respectively.
While I agree that these dates do not by themselves pass the five-year limit, although they get uncommonly near to it, it is quite clear from the rest of the Report, with which I will not trouble the House, that foresight on a more provisional basis has to go even beyond the five years contemplated by the Government's White Paper on the nationalised industries. I have no objection to this. It seems to me to be right in all the circumstances, so far as I can judge them, but I emphatically point out that private enterprise could not possibly have planned, either on the national scale which we are now considering, or for the length of period that the Government and the industry are using for the purposes of their programme.
I welcome this, and I see that the Electricity Council, in paragraph 36 of the same Report, says:
The record of the past three years is one with which the Electricity Boards can be reasonably satisfied.
They are, after all, the bodies which actually distribute the electricity.
They have honoured the financial prospectus on which their borrowing powers were increased.
The Report then proceeds to consider the future.
I have been through this Report with the care appropriate to someone who does not know too much to begin with about a subject on which he has to speak, and I must say that I am very impressed by the details of what has been done, not that we are going into all of them tonight. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and I was glad to hear him say it, that the White Paper makes it perfectly clear that what is now asked for cannot carry the industry to

the end of March, 1965. Indeed, the actual figures of the present forecast in the table on page 5 in paragraph 9 of the last White Paper, Cmnd. 1564, actually exceed by small amounts the limit now to be covered by these Orders.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the forecast made in 1958–59 did not provide sufficiently for the growth of the industry, and when one turns from that to a little more detail, to see what has happened in the expenditure during the years since then, we find the reasons for it. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that the figures of capital requirements, the estimate compared with the outturn, showed that the estimate had not quite been reached, but what I think he did not make quite clear, at any rate to me, was that that is only arrived at by a combination of two things.
The first is that the actual expenditure on generating plants and main transmission and distribution has increased beyond the estimate. But that has been more than counter-balanced by two things. One is the phasing of or cut in—whichever one likes to call it—the nuclear power programme, which was the subject of Command Paper 1083 in June, 1960. The other is the considerable change in the working capital figures, which, as I see it, simply means that by the commercial accident, as it were, that always happens in dealing with this kind of thing, a draft has actually been made on the working capital.
It is, therefore, true to say that, apart from the nuclear power change and apart from the change in working capital, there has been, as indeed the Report makes clear in some detail, an excess of growth beyond what was forecast earlier. That excess of expenditure is due to two things, as I understand it. Less than half of it is due to any rise in costs and prices; more than half is due to what is called in one passage in the White Paper "the upsurge in demand".
It is perfectly clear if one looks at this Report that the electricity authorities, by which I mean the Council or the operating boards, including the Generating Board, have found it very hard indeed to keep pace with the upsurge in demand.


I would praise the efforts that they have made to do it so far as one can judge them from the Report, but they have indeed required an effort.
What I think is particularly to be commended is that the upsurge in demand and the meeting of it have resulted in an increased production of, for instance, units of electricity, and, though there have in fact been, some tariff increases, we see from the Reports that the average revenue per unit is actually down by 2–3 per cent. or thereabouts. If we look at what is really the same question, although another way round, the cost per kW. is about 10 per cent. down.
That is really a very remarkable and creditable state of affairs. Without coming down on the consumer at a time not only of rising prices but of the usual series of Government financial crises, the electricity industry has managed actually to reduce the cost to the consumer in general to meet an upsurge in demand which, with the best judgment it had, it certainly did not fully foresee when the 1959 Act was passed, and to do this by reducing costs on increased production.
One can, no doubt, find matters to criticise here and there if one looks closely enough, but the general tenor is, I suggest, quite remarkable creditable to those concerned, and creditable to the necessary concept of this industry as the public service which under modern conditions it seems to me it is absolutely bound to be.
I take one other matter which I think may serve as a rough test, and I take it because I notice that it was mentioned in the debates on the 1959 Bill. That is what is called by the experts, I believe, the system load factor. It is quite clearly explained in the Electricity Council's Report, particularly on page 27. There, after what appear to be the proper and appropriate adjustments, we have a continuous history of a rise in the percentage indicating the system load factor from 1948 to 1961, with one very small exception in the early years. This, as I understand it, is the way in which those best versed in these matters indicate the fullness of the use being made of the electrical resources provided. It is a question of not merely providing for peak periods but also

spreading the demand for electricity, as far as that can be done, over the day.
When dealing with this the Electricity Council points out that there are limits to what can be done in this matter, because the changes in what it calls domestic and industrial conditions largely dictate what the load factor will be. The Council says in paragraph 113:
The adoption of more shift working, a wider use of electricity for continuous processes in industry and agriculture and the greater use of power in the home in off-peak periods would do much to help.
In another part of the Report the Council indicates the corresponding difficulties. I mention this and dwell on it because it indicates the character of the industry and the elasticity with which it has to meet the demands on it. The more credit to it that this has been done. It has been done, as the Report indicates, under continuously changing conditions and in the light of developments in industrial and domestic use which are now happening in other countries too.
That is the general picture. There are one or two points upon which I should like to ask the Minister of Power, or whoever is to reply, some questions. I notice that the cost of research in the industry in the year covered by the Report of the Council—namely, the year ended 31st March, 1961—was £4·9 million. I notice, too, that the industry benefited to some extent from the research conducted by its suppliers of plant. However, this is a very small percentage of the money available for the industry to spend on research. This is an industry in which a great deal of research is required and where there is a real danger of falling behind if it is not undertaken.
Passages towards the end of the Report of the Electricity Council emphasise the need for training in the industry, which is closely connected with research. It is pointed out that, if it is not carried out, the industry will not play its part and this country will lag behind other countries in this important respect. I am not for a minute going back on what I said about what the nationalised electricity industry has done, but, after all, it has had in many ways an uphill task.
I want to mention a matter which again shows how much the industry has done and yet how much was needed to


be done. I refer to the supply of electricity to farms. In 1948, when the industry was taken over, only 48 per cent. of all farms in this country were supplied with electricity. In 1958 it was 70 per cent. and by the end of March 1961, it was 84 per cent. The comments on this in "Power for the Future"—a statement of a programme that was issued in connection with the 1959 Bill—point out that although something had been done by private industry, a comprehensive approach to the problem of rural electrification was inhibited by the early structure of the industry. It states:
Development up to 1948, influenced mainly by economic factors, had been characterised by a gradual spreading out from urban centres rather than a systematic plan to tackle the field as a whole.
That seems a fair and reasonable comment and exactly what one would expect from electricity if one attempted to organise it in a set of private companies. It is the sort of social demand which the nationalised industry has been able to meet.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman about research and I want to ask him a further question. My hon. Friends, at intervals, have complained to him that there is a sad lack of a national fuel policy and I notice a comment in the Electricity Council's Report which refers to the consumption of coal and oil during the year 1960–1961 compared with the previous year. Actually, both have gone up. I see no particular significance in these figures, but I should like to know what steps are being taken to consider the question of what is going to be provided by way of plant using coal and plant using oil for the use of the Generating Board and any other boards concerned with this form of capital equipment. If I am asking a question which the right hon. Gentleman has already answered six times to other hon. Members, I hope he will not bother to answer me but will tell me to look up one of his previous answers. It is far from clear in the Report who is really the deciding authority.
I turn to a picturesque incident of a special character which I find in the Electricity Council's Report. There must be few nationalised industries which publish a career novel. But I notice "Keith in Electricity" is part of the

output of the Electricity Council. A career novel is a bright idea and well worth mentioning.
In the extremely interesting venture of linking up with the French electricity system the cash savings appear to be substantial, and whoever thought of that one deserves credit. There is such a thing as public enterprise as well as private enterprise in this case in point. It means that for the reasons given in the Report one can increase the system load factor considerably by pushing over one's electricity to France at the time of the day and in the circumstances in which they stand in more need of it than we do and by receiving electricity from them in converse circumstances.
If the House will allow a personal observation, I find in the reading of the Electricity Council's Report and the other working papers a great many points of extreme interest, and perhaps I speak for the ordinary user of electricity when I say to the Electricity Authority, the boards and the others concerned, "Thank you for what you have done. You have had a difficult job. You may not have done it all perfectly, but it is a very good show".

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I did not intend to resort to party political considerations during a debate dealing with massive electricity finance for the future, but as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has endeavoured to cloak his lack of electricity economics and finance under a shroud of party political polemics, I might, perhaps, be allowed to point out the phenomenal growth of electricity generation during the ten years of Conservative rule since 1951. The rate of increase has been larger in this country than in any West European country with which we are so often compared in economic and industrial matters by hon. Members opposite.
In 1950, the amount of electricity generated in British power stations was 45,717 million kilowatt hours. Eleven years later, in 1961, the output has risen to 111,414 million kilowatt hours, an increase of approximately 150 per cent. The average rate of increase in electricity—

Mr. William Hannan: My hon. Friend must listen to


the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). Everybody must listen.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I appeal to you to ask the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that if he wishes to intervene in my speech and will rise, I will immediately give way, but not to conduct a private conversation and endeavour to destroy the arguments which I am trying to put to the House. Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I was not even interested in what the hon. Member was saying.

Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps I might now be allowed to resume amid silence from the benches opposite. I was saying that in ten years of Conservative rule, electricity generation has increased by about 150 per cent. or at the rate of between 11 and 12 per cent. per annum in arithmetical progression, which is a higher level of increase, taken at an average, than that of any West European industrial competitor of ours. That is the basis, therefore, on which I consider that my right hon. Friend should come to the House this evening for consider-ration of increasing the borrowing powers of the electricity industry, the greater part of the moneys being devoted, of course, to the requirements of generation.
The correct measure of an affluent society, a phrase which has been used on several occasions during the debate this evening, is the amount of electric power consumed both in industry and in the home. I believe that in the next few years we should provide for a rate of increase at least equal to that of the average of the last few years. It is significant that my right hon. Friend, in his opening speech in support of these Orders, and the Electricity Council, in its publication "Finance for Power", quote a large number of technical figures, but at no stage have they stated the anticipated annual growth in electricity demand year by year during the period of five years ahead, for which we are being asked to vote the capital sums under these Orders.
My first question, therefore, to my right hon. Friend is to ask what is the average rate of growth that he is anticipating during the next four or five

years in support of these capital investment figures. Am I correct in assuming that he has based the rate of growth on the average of the last ten years, which in arithmetical progression is 11 per cent. per annum, or the lesser rate of growth postulated in the Report and Accounts of the Central Electricity Generating Board for the year ending 31st March, 1961, a rate of growth of only 7–8 per cent. per annum? The difference between the two sets of figures, either 11 to 12 per cent. per annum, which is the retrospective average in the last decade, and the 7 to 8 per cent. for the future suggested in the last Report of the Electricity Council can, of course, make a difference of millions of pounds per annum in the capital investment programme being considered under these Orders.
The second matter I want to put to my right hon. Friend is this complicated matter of self-financing. There are evident discrepancies in the fashion in which the appropriate statistics for self-financing have been presented to the House. Of course, my right hon. Friend correctly, in connection with the White Paper, Cmnd. 1564—it is so much easier to refer to it by its number than by its title—in the second line of the table in paragraph 6, quoted the rates of self-financing. Estimates based on the 1958 basis were 42 per cent., and in out-turn or actual fact have proved to be 43 per cent. They do not, however, compare accurately with the sets of figures in the official publication, "Finance for Power," page 7, where the rates of self-financing were quoted as being derived from "Power for the Future"—in 1958, 44·8 per cent.—and are said in actual fact for the last three years to be at the rate of 45·6 per cent. I have no doubt there is an explanation for these discrepancies. There is a difference of 2 to 3 per cent. in the figures, and I suspect that it may be found in the sum for debt redemption payments annually in respect of certain vested assets.
What I want to say to my right hon. Friend is this. It is frightfully unsatisfactory dealing with these huge sums of money if two different bases for presentation, which do not allow of proper comparison the one with the other, are laid


before the House in different publications. The basis of comparison—I repeat, the basis—should always be the same.
I now come to another point in this matter of self-financing where my right hon. Friend is not evidently presenting the figures, again, on a strictly comparable basis. Would he turn, please, to page 5 of Cmnd. 1564. It is estimated that on present forecast up to 31st March, 1965, the total capital requirements of the industry will be £4,039 million. It is further estimated that the sum found from internal financial resources will be £1,659 million. I have worked out the percentage of self-financing in this instance and find it is 41 per cent. Would my right hon. Friend make a note of that figure—41 per cent. of self-financing? Yet in his speech he said that he expected in the next three years the level of self-financing would rise to 50 per cent. and later to 60 per cent. There is evidently, therefore, a grave discrepancy again in the amount of self-financing which is anticipated in this industry.
My appeal to my right hon. Friend is to present his figures on a strictly comparable basis in all official publications and not to use different bases and different formulae in different publications which lead to grave misunderstanding and confusion in the minds of his listeners and the wider public outside this House. These words are addressed to my right hon. Friend, principally in response to his plea during his speech that he was helping me by giving me the appropriate references.
I now turn to the critical point in the huge sums of money which we are now discussing, and that is the growth in thermal efficiency in the power stations which are already in existence. My right hon. Friend hinted that credit squeeze activities which he is obliged to pursue by the Treasury—and I sympathise most sincerely with him—circumscribed the money available for capital investment in this most costly of all public enterprises in the matter of capital investment. Electricity takes about 5 per cent. of the nation's gross capital investment a year. I do not begrudge one penny of that investment so long as the maximum efficiency is being derived from the huge sums invested in the industry. I am not sure

that that is so today, and this is not only a criticism of the nationalised electricity industry but also of the industry from which it draws most of its fuel supplies.
Would my right hon. Friend turn to paragraph 82 of the last Annual Report of the Central Electricity Generating Board?[An HON. MEMBER: "Why should he?"] Because it is a matter of economy of capital investment. That is another ribald intervention.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to have that on record. The fact of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), above all people, accusing another hon. Member of ribaldry is something which ought not to go unrecorded.

Mr. Nabarro: Paragraph 82 on page 25 of that Report states:
Due to the commissioning of new generating plant operating under more advanced steam conditions, and to improvements in operating techniques, the average thermal efficiency of steam stations improved"—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps, due to the interruption, I might quote that paragraph again:
Due to the commissioning of new generating plant operating under more advanced steam conditions, and to improvements in operating techniques, the average thermal efficiency of steam stations improved from 21·69 per cent. in 1950–51 to 26·80 per cent. in 1960–61. The improvement from 26·53 per cent. in 1959–60 to 26·80 per cent. in 1960–61 was not as great as in some earlier years, due to the need to run older and less efficient plant for longer periods during the colder weather of the autumn of 1960 and to delays in the full commercial commissioning of some of the modern plant due in service; thermal efficiency was also affected by the wetness and quality of some of the coal available from stock.
Circumscribing capital investment programmes for new generating plant is wasteful policy, because it leads the Board to keep in commission much older plant that would otherwise be scrapped, which is thereby operated at a low level of efficiency and which causes a loss of efficiency over the system as a whole and is generally extremely wasteful.
The second point I put to my right hon. Friend is whether he will make representations to the National Coal


Board, which is desperately seeking to increase its sales, notably of low-grade, high ash coal, to improve the quality of the coal sent to power stations, and thereby raise the thermal efficiency. I hope he realises that these very high figures of capital investment he has come to the House for could substantially be reduced if the thermal efficiency of power stations were improved along the lines I am suggesting.
There is one further point to which I draw his attention tonight. This concerns the load factor of power stations, which is far from satisfactory. He now has a copy of the Report from which I am quoting. Perhaps he will turn to page 19, paragraph 62. There he will see that the load factor of our power stations ten years ago, in 1950–51, was 43·2 per cent. In the ten years to 1960–61, it has increased to 48·5 per cent. That is an increase of only approximately one-half of one per cent. per annum, a rate of increase which is far too low. As a result of the tardiness in the level of increase in the load factor year by year, a great additional cost is, of course, incurred for capital investment purposes.
My right hon. Friend was serving at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance at the time, but I would like him to reread and absorb, before he authorises the capital investment for the electricity industry for the next year, some words which I quoted to the present Secretary of State for the Colonies—who then spoke for the Ministry of Power in this House—on 20th January, 1959. They were:
If the load factor could be permanently improved by 5 per cent. it would mean a vast saving in capital. Electrical engineers are anxious to use the most efficient stations and classify them most scrupulously according to their thermal efficiency—though even the most efficient loses 70 per cent. of the value of the fuel consumed. But to search for ways and means to maximise the use of the vast plant under their care does not seem to concern them. To do so would require some unorthodox thinking and departure from tradition. There would have to be some drastic modifications in tariffs; all this would not be easy and rather unpopular in the industries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January. 1959; Vol. 598, c. 128.]
What is my right hon. Friend doing about improvement in load factors? The words I ask him to reread were not mine. They were quoted from the

book "Nationalisation in Britain" by Mr. Kelf-Cohen, whose authority for using them was that for many years he was the second principal civil servant at the Ministry of Fuel and Power. He therefore had to deal directly, year by year, with these capital investment figures, and was thus singularly well qualified to comment on wastage of investment funds in this most expensive of all nationalised industries.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will he at pains to answer my questions.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I always am.

Mr. Nabarro: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's assurance that he always is. In that regard he differs from the Minister of Power, who declines to answer questions in debate. I shall look forward particularly to hearing answers to my questions on efficiency matters—on thermal efficiency and on the load factor of power stations—because in all these matters there is the greatest opportunity for economy of funds in this huge capital investment programme that is before the House.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: My hon. Friend the Member for Kiddermnster (Mr. Nabarro) indicated that the load factor in the United Kingdom is 48·5 per cent. It would be difficult to increase that figure substantially. An international comparison with, for instance, the United States, where it is over 60 per cent., would not be appropriate, because different factors apply and additional fuels are available. If the load factor were very much higher in the United Kingdom, however, the nuclear power stations would be much better placed now. It would be possible on that basis for it to be competitive with other fuels before 1970.
To come straight to the point, when we look at this Order we see that my right hon. Friend is asking for the ceiling to be raised from £1,800 million to £2,300 million, a quite significant rise. This is not an immodest sum. What is more, someone has to provide it, of course, the Council has direct access to the Treasury and in turn the Treasury has to raise it. Either it has to come


from the taxpayer or the Treasury has to go to the market in due course. If it fails to secure the necessary funds, there is the question of Treasury bills, which may themselves be inflationary. I should have thought that the time had arrived when my right hon. Friend would be prepared to allow the boards to go to the market for part, if not all, their funds. In times of financial stringency perhaps not all would be secured, but part could be.
He is asking for moneys which could be utilised up to 1965. I am not entirely surprised that my right hon. Friend says that he may have to come to this House again in 1963–64, but on the prior point it may be that we see a glimmer of light in the publication, "Finance for Power". It says:
… the Council cannot ignore the facts that the industry enjoys direct access to the Treasury for capital, that a large part of the capital thus lent to it is obtained by the Treasury from taxation, and that the market for fixed interest stocks is far from easy".
Here we have a glimmer of light, It continues:
But this does not mean that the Electricity Boards and Council would never be willing to face the capital market on their own record and prospects; their view would depend on the conditions ruling at any given time".
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will be prepared to concede that that is an additional point. If industry is prepared to go to the market and raise stocks why cannot this industry at a suitable time do precisely the same?
I make a further suggestion to my right hon. Friend. Her Majestys Government have a 50 per cent. interest in British Petroleum. That private enterprise company went to the market in Switzerland and borrowed funds. If the electricity industry finds the rate of interest in the United Kingdom too unfavourable, perhaps it can go to the Continent where it can borrow money more cheaply. If a company in which the Government have a 50 per cent. interest can go to Switzerland and, I think, also to Western Germany, there is no reason why we should not have a little fresh thinking in this case. The boards may themselves go abroad where they can borrow money much more cheaply. For the size of the problem one has only to look at "Public Investment in

Great Britain", published in October, 1951, to find that the approved expenditure of the electricity industry for 1962–3 is estimated at £397 million out of a total of £915 million for the nationalised industries and public corporations. In fact it is 43–2 per cent. of the total. I am not going to say at this stage that this immense investment is unnecessary. On the contrary, this is expanding fast and will require reasonably cheap fuel, certainly to be competitive with Europe But we must be in a position in the United Kingdom to secure what we require and to see that the House has effective control over expenditure.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has read Cmnd. 1337, in paragraph 27 of which the full reasons are given, after very careful inquiry by Lord Radcliffe, why the industries should not and could not go on to the market as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Lady should appreciate that we are looking ahead and that we may be on the threshold of joining the Common Market. The trouble in the past has been our inability to do any forward thinking on these matters. There will be a free flow of capital into the United Kingdom from Europe and vice versa if we join. I gave the example of a private enterprise company which had raised funds on the Swiss and, I believe, the German markets. While it would have been impossible for certain deficit industries to do this, there is no reason why success industries should not do it. This is a question of looking ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great difficulty about this. I have been allowing the hon. Member as much licence as possible, but the discussion is on an Order pursuant to a Statute which regulates borrowing from the Treasury, and to borrow elsewhere for this purpose would involve amendment to the Statute, which the hon. Member cannot urge in this debate.

Mr. Skeet: I fully accept that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I was pointing out, before I was led astray by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), that a heavy burden


falls on the taxpayer, because the taxpayer has to foot part of the bill. In these industries we have not noticed over the years any surplus handed back to the consumer in reduced prices.
A surplus can be used in two ways: it can be ploughed back. There is ample reason for that. But the public is placed in the situation that as the years unfold especially as more money will be spent on plant very large sums will be borrowed from Government sources. But the taxpayer has two capacities—taxpayer and consumer—and he will foot both bills. The House must appreciate the significance of these remarks.
I do not want unduly to prolong the debate, but there are one or two economies which my right hon. Friend might bear in mind. He mentioned that conventional power costs had been reduced to about £40 per kilowatt installed, but in even the most up-to-date nuclear power stations the figure is slightly over £100. Does not that indicate that if he wishes to save on expenditure in future the nuclear power programme should be further contracted?
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to the link between this country and Europe. It might be a useful step for us to invest in the hydro installations in Europe, because that might ultimately reduce our costs in the United Kingdom.
It has been indicated that the demand for electricity is expanding rapidly; it doubles every ten years. But that does not necessarily give a true picture throughout the country. The expansion has been very much faster in the South than in the North—or, rather, in certain parts of the North. In the South there are only a certain number of points available for nuclear power stations. It is very difficult to bring power south because of public objection to transmission lines and there is little coal south of the Trent. Therefore, my right hon. Friend may have to look increasingly to other fuels. I hope that when my right hon. Friend gets this additional right for the Electricity Council and others to borrow these very large sums up to 1965 he will see that they are properly applied over that period. These are vast resources. We have noticed in the past that errors

have been made and we would not like to see those repeated.

11.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): May I deal straight away with one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) on the question of going to the market for finance at some time in the future. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was correct in saying that the point was dealt with in paragraph 27 of Cmnd. 1337. One cannot possibly rule it out for the future, and we would all hope that this might be possible.

Miss Herbison: We are discussing the borrowing powers for the present and for a few years ahead. That was all that was being discussed. I should be surprised if this industry, which has such a success story, were not in the position at some time in the future of having to apply to the Government.

Mr. Maclay: We are all in agreement about that. I agree that there is a success story and I welcome the compliments that have been paid on both sides of the House to the industry.
A number of questions have been asked and I will deal with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made some pointed comments about comparability of figures in different documents. I took the trouble to look at the speech that I made about two years ago when we discussed these matters. I read the whole of it. I also looked at the speech that my hon. Friend made then. I was hoping that my hon. Friend would compliment us on the very long way that we have gone to implement everything that I said we would do on that last occasion by making available a large number of very useful documents into which my hon. Friend could get his teeth and which he could explore in his usual way. He did not pay us a compliment about that, but he criticised us for a certain degree of lack of comparability. The point is taken and we will examine how far it is possible in this complex matter to ensure that figures are comparable.

Mr. Nabarro: May I apologise to my right hon. Friend for my failure to observe the customary courtesies. I have


before me his speech of 20th January, 1959, reported in column 152 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He has implemented all his promises in laying these magnificent documents before the House, and I am deeply grateful to him. If he would only imbue his advisers with the vital necessity for seeing that all figures are quoted on a comparable basis in all official documents we should all be much happier.

Mr. Malay: I am grateful for that very handsome gesture.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked a number of questions, one of which related to the matter of research and development. A very large increase in the scale of research and development by the electricity supply industry is planned for 1962–63 and there are plans for still further increases in years to come, but I am not able to quantify them this evening or to give figures.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked a question about Cmnd. 1564, paragraph 24, and asked me to reconcile the five-year operation with the seven-year operation. I do not think they are inconsistent. Clearly we are thinking ahead a number of years. What is stated in paragraph 24 of that White Paper is what happens year by year or at different stages in the operation, and the procedures are not inconsistent. I think we all recognise that this industry has to think ahead a fair number of years.
The hon. and learned Member asked about a national fuel policy, and narrowed the subject down a little to the question of who decides, and what steps are taken to decide, between different fuels—coal and oil. I think that was the substance of his question.

Mr. Mitchison: I dare say that I did not make it sufficiently clear. The point was—what are the reasons for deciding between building stations which will use oil and stations which will use coal?

Mr. Maclay: I appreciate that. The point is that in this case my right hon. Friend and I myself, in Scotland, are in close consultation with the boards when there is a new plant in contemplation. I can say from my own knowledge that there is a great deal of discussion and that a great deal of care is taken to en-

sure that each plant is fuelled in the way most appropriate to the area in which it must be situated. I am afraid that that is the only manner in which one can wisely decide this. One is always watching the progress of nuclear developments, but in any case the answer depends very much on the precise area in which the station is needed, and the stations tend to be sited in relation to suitable types of coal that are available. If there were a case where the coal was not suitable, another type of fuel would have to be contemplated. This is a continuing process. It must be examined carefully with every station.

Mr. Mitchison: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman also bears in mind that these stations use, I believe, a rather low-quality coal and that they might be so sited in Scotland as to continue the use of collieries which otherwise might be shut down. I am sure that my hon. Friend and neighbour would have something to say on that.

Mr. Maclay: We are very conscious of that indeed. In fact, we are in one or two instances in Scotland using slurry. Quite a lot of work has been done in that direction. It is not yet altogether certain how much further one can go, but that sort of consideration is very much in our minds.
I turn now to some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. He asked about the average rate of growth. As I understand the position, the average rate of growth of electricity demand is 7·2 per cent. over the period of the programme. That is close to what has happened in the past decade.
I am afraid that I could not follow, or check in the time available, how my hon. Friend arrived at the figure of 11 per cent. I should have to do some research into that before I could reconcile the figure of 11 per cent., because I cannot discover where it comes from. But what I have said is correct, that the rate is 7·2 per cent. for the period of the programme, and I repeat that that is close to what has happened during the past decade.
My hon. Friend also spoke about thermal efficiency and the load factor. Everything is being done to use the most efficient stations as fast as we can. He


asked specifically why the industry still uses old plant with low thermal efficiency. The short answer is that it uses these stations only for a relatively few hours per year. It may be that it would be much more expensive to invest capital in new plant to operate for what might be a relatively small number of hours over a year. The point of that is obvious. At any stage of development of a programme there are old stations, and one has to use them to meet special requirements at special times of the year rather than go in for major investment which would produce other stations of maximum efficiency.
My hon. Friend also referred to coal quality, and asked why the National Coal Board does not supply better coal. Up to a certain point, the Board can supply only the coal nature provides. But, fortunately, the electricity industry can efficiently use a much lower grade of coal than any other industry can. That is one of the advantages of this industry in relation to coal.
I think that my remarks have covered the questions by my hon. Friend that I can reasonably deal with this evening.
I conclude by saying that I welcome the fact that we are able to put before the House of Commons borrowing powers for such an admirable reason—that we have an industry which is getting itself ready to meet the tremendous upsurge in demand that is coming. It

is a very good test, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster said, of the health of the country that it is demanding this increased electricity. I sincerely hope that the House will now approve these Orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1961, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (South of Scotland Electricity Board) Order, 1961[draft laid before the House, 6th December], approved.—[Mr. Maclay.]

SIERRA LEONE (GIFT OF A MACE)

Resolution reported,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Mace to the House of Representatives of Sierra Leone, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

Resolution agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.